Full text of "Ezra studies"

See other formats

:CO

•in

EZRA STUDIES

STUDIES

CHARLES C. TORREY

PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES IN YALE UNIVERSITY

CHICAGO \

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS . ^

1910 (

& .,

Published January 1910

Composed and Printed By

The University of Chicago Press

Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A.

SIR HENRY H. HOWORTH
D.C.L., F.R.S., K.C.I.E.

PIONEER IN EZRA STUDIES
THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED
AS A TOKEN OF HIGH ESTEEM

PREFACE

Thirteen years ago, in 1896, I published a pamphlet entitled
The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, which
appeared in Giessen as one of the Beihefte of the Zeitschrift filr
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. It presented in concise form
certain conclusions which I had reached a year or two previously,
in studying the so-called "Apocryphal Ezra," or First Esdras.
At about the same time when I was carrying on my investigations
appeared the articles of Sir Henry Howorth, in the Academy
(see the references given on p. 16), the pamphlets of Hoonacker
and Rosters,1 and the more elaborate treatise of Eduard Meyer
(see below). My own conclusions were formulated before I had
seen any of these publications, and differed widely from each and
all of them at almost every point. I found myself in agreement
with Howorth, however, in his important contention that "I
Esdras" represents the old Greek translation of Chron.-
Ezr.-Neh. ; and with Kosters in his argument (previously set
forth, less completely, by Schrader and others) that the Biblical
account of the return o£ exiles from Babylonia to Jerusalem in
the time of Cyrus is untrustworthy.

The conclusions reached and stated in my pamphlet have been
adopted, in general, by H. P. Smith in his Old Testament History,
and by Kent in his Students Old Testament, but in each case
with little or no discussion of the questions involved. So far as
I know, the booklet has never been reviewed or estimated in print,
except in four brief German notices, to three of which I have
occasion to refer in the present volume. It has been mentioned
or quoted in a few places, generally in such a way as to show that
it had not been read, but only looked at here and there. Siegfried,
in the tolerably long list of monographs given in the preface to
his Commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah (1901), does not include it.
Driver, Introduction to the Old Testament, names it in his list of
monographs, but otherwise takes no notice of it, even when
discussing the questions with which it is chiefly concerned.

!Van Hoonacker, N6hemie et Esdras (1890); Whtmie en Van 20 d'
Artaxerxes I et Esdras en Van 7 d'Artaxerxes II (1892); Zorobabel et le
second Temple (1892); and Kosters, Herstel van Israel in het Perzische
Tijdvak (1894), German trans, by Basedow in 1895.

vii

viii PREFACE

One or two scholars were sufficiently impressed by the book
to express themselves with emphasis. Thus Klostermann, in
the article "Esra und Nehemia" in Hauck's Eealencyclopadie*
vol. v, p. 501, remarks: "Zuletzt ist zu erwahnen weniger der
Rosters in der Ersetzung der Ueberlieferung durch tibelberatene
Phantasie tiberbietende Torrey, Composition and historical value
of Ezra-Nehemia, Giessen 1896, als vielmehr Ed. Meyer, Die
Entstehung des Judentums, u. s. w."5 It is true that such a
revolutionary treatise as mine could make no favorable impression
on those who had not the time to examine it carefully, or on those
who cannot be relied on to distinguish a sound argument from
an unsound one. I must admit, also, that this first publication
was in its plan not very well fitted to make converts. It pre
sented the whole argument in condensed form, leaving many
steps merely indicated in a few words, or covered by an assertion,
where it was taken for granted that the reader could see for
himself the facts and processes which had only been hinted at.
But things which are self-evident to one who has himself worked
through a large part of the material are often less plain to others.
Moreover, an essay which flatly contradicts most of the funda
mental tenets of modern Old Testament science in its field (and
that a very important field) has every presumption against it,
especially when it is presented by one who is unknown as an
investigator in this sphere. It is only natural to decide, at the
first glance, that the new conclusions cannot possibly be right,
and need not be seriously considered. I believe, however, that the
main arguments offered in my Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah are
sure to be cogent for any one who has studied the material closely
enough to be able to follow them through. The question of the
general acceptance of the conclusions presented there and here
is only a question of time.

The preceding briefer investigation seemed chiefly destructive.
The author, whose principal tasks and interests are not in the Old

2 Similarly, Ed. KOnig, in the article "Ezra and Nehemiah " in the
Standard Bible Dictionary (1909), p. 247, writes: " The trustworthiness of the
documents and memoirs which have been used in the books of Ezra-Nehemiah
has been demonstrated at length, especially by Eduard Meyer, Die Entsteh
ung des Judentums, 1896, by whom the extreme views presented in C. C.
Torrey's Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah are shown to
be without critical foundation." Which of the two treatises was without
critical foundation will be evident, I think, to those who read the successive
chapters of the present volume; especially chapter vi.

PREFACE ix

Testament field, had not then the opportunity to carry it out
further, but hoped that some other investigator would see that
what it involved was not the mere matter of a few passages, or
even of a few incidents in the life of the Jewish people, but a
thoroughgoing revision of the existing notions of the history of
their national growth in the Persian period, their institutions,
and their religious ideas. Whoever had proceeded thus far could
hardly fail to perceive also how the later part of the Old Testa
ment itself, and the story of the community in Jerusalem, had
now for the first time become comprehensible and self -consistent.
No such coadjutor appeared, however; hence at last the present
work, every chapter of which is constructive.

This attempt to sketch the history of the Jews in the Persian
period, culminating in the last chapter of the book, differs from
all preceding ones in several fundamental particulars. It recog
nizes for the first time the extent of the Chronicler's independent
handiwork. That he must be regarded as the sole author of the
Ezra story, of all the book of Nehemiah after chapter 6, and of
the Artaxerxes letter in Ezra 7, is here demonstrated conclusively.
The nature and purpose of his work are also discovered and
set forth. It is not the production of a Levitical historian of
small ability and large bias (as it is usually regarded), but a
great undertaking with a single very definite aim well executed,
an elaborate and timely championing of the Jewish sacred insti
tutions, especially in opposition to the Samaritans ; very interesting
and very important, but by no means to be used as a source for
the history of Israel under Persian rule. Its author is, demon-
strably, not a mere editor, but a writer possessed of a rich and vig
orous imagination, which he here exercised to the full. Another
important point of difference concerns the use made of the
Chronicler's independent work, that is, all of his narrative whioh
we are unable to control from other sources. It is here shown
that every part of it either lies directly in the line of his main
purpose or else bears other marks characteristic of his own
creations; and it is accordingly left entirely out of account in
portraying the course of the history. There was no return of
exiles, no scribe-potentate Ezra, no law brought from Babylonia,
no wholesale expulsion of Gentile wives and children. The book
of Ezra-Nehemiah does not furnish us the date of the completion
of the Pentateuch.

x PREFACE

But the theory here set forth marks a new departure not only
in its treatment of the Chronicler, but still more in the point of
view from which it estimates the later writings and writers of the
Old Testament. It is customary to measure them, one and all,
by the Chronicler's "Ezra," and their words are everywhere
given an interpretation to correspond. It would be much fairer
to take as the standard the Second Isaiah, the prophets and
teachers of the restoration period, and those who wrote the best
part of the Psalter, giving their utterances the broad interpreta
tion which I have indicated, and to which they are fully entitled.
These were philosophers and poets who in their conception of
God and man surpassed all the other sages of the ancient world,
one of their number, moreover, being incomparably the profound-
est thinker and most eloquent writer in all the Old Testament;
men busied with the greatest concerns of human life, not with
the petty interests attributed to them by our commentators. The
seed sown by their predecessors of the Hebrew monarchy did not
die, nor did the plant which sprung from it dwindle and grow
sickly, while the Jews remained in their land; it prospered
mightily and brought forth abundantly. Jesus of Nazareth was
the true child of his people, the best fruit of a sublime religious
growth which in modern times has been sadly misunderstood.
The story of the religion of Israel, from Deuteronomy down to
the time of the Roman rule, is not a story of deterioration, but
one of advance. Moreover, Judaism grew up in Judea, it was not
transplanted from foreign soil. The fact of the Dispersion,
as is here shown for the first time, exercised a tremendous
influence all through the Persian period and thereafter, and its
main effect on the Jews of the home-land was broadening and
salutary. The messianic and universal interpretation of the
Second Isaiah which is found in the Gospels is the only correct
one. To put the whole matter in a few words: both the history
of Israel after the fall of the kingdom, and the exegesis of the
literature of that period, which have been written during the past
generation have been built on a false foundation derived from
the Chronicler's work, and need to be completely revised. To
give the first sketch of such a historical reconstruction is the
chief purpose of the present volume, and especially of the last
chapter, which attempts to use impartially for that purpose all
the trustworthy evidence which we possess.

PREFACE xi

The contributions incidentally made to the science of Old
Testament literature will probably also be found interesting: the
proof of the fact that "First Esdras" is a rescued fragment of
the old Greek translation of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, not an
apocryphal writing; the light thrown on some of the versions of
these books, especially the demonstration of the true character of
the much misunderstood and misused Lucianic recension, the
proof that our "canonical" Greek translation is that of Theodotion,
the publication for the first time of a part of the Hexaplar text
of Nehemiah, and the dethronement of Codex B from the high
place which it has so long held without right; the first presenta
tion of the Story of the Three Youths in its original character
and extent, with the demonstration that it was written in Aramaic;
the recovery, for the "canonical" Old Testament, of the lost
chapter which originally followed the first chapter of Ezra, and
the attempted restoration of its Hebrew text, rendered back from
the Greek; the manifold evidence given to show that among the
Jews of Jerusalem in the Greek period it was commonly believed
that Darius Hystaspis (supposed by them to be a Median king,
and called "Darius the Mede") immediately preceded Cyrus;
the conclusive proof that the Aramaic documents in Ezra all date
from the Greek period; the restoration of the primitive form of
the long-debated Ezra story, by the transposition of a single
block of narrative belonging to a section which ever since the
second century B.C. has been recognized as in some way out of
place; and other less important matters. The author also hopes
that some of the observations relating to text and versions may
stimulate to a more serious pursuit of this branch of scientific
investigation. If the historical and literary study of the Old
Testament books is still in its childhood, the critical study of the
Hebrew text may truly be said to be in its infancy. Textual
emendation based on conjecture is usually mistaken, and that
based on the evidence of versions is in most cases precarious at
least; for the massoretic text is likely to be right even where it is
contradicted by the other witnesses,3 and the testimony of the latter

3 In the vast majority of cases, the version only seems to contradict the
Hebrew, but does not in reality. Regarding the relative excellence of the
massoretic text, the writer may refer to his " Notes on the Aramaic Part of
Daniel" (Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences,
Vol. XV, 1909), in which some new evidence in support of our traditional
Hebrew is offered.

xii PREFACE

is very easily misunderstood. The writer is himself conscious of
many shortcomings and foolish performances in this field, and
does not suppose that the text-critical attempts made in the
present volume are free from blunders. Great pains have been
taken, however, to find out the character and history, not only of
the texts which are being scrutinized, but also of those by the aid
of which it is proposed to emend. Lack of acumen may be
excused; the unpardonable sin is that of criticising without any
careful attention to the materials of criticism. The way in which
the best known and oftenest quoted of our modern commentators
and editors hack away at a faultless Hebrew text, on the ground
of Greek readings which they have not carefully examined, found
in translations with whose character they do not concern them
selves and of the nature and conditions of whose literary trans
mission they have hardly an idea, is nothing short of appalling.
And yet this is what passes for "text-criticism" at the present
day. A good many instances of the kind receive mention in the
following pages, mostly in footnotes. The influence of this hasty
and unscientific mode of procedure in dealing with the text has
been working great harm in all the other branches of Old
Testament study.

Most of the chapters of this book have already appeared in
print, but in places where their circulation has of necessity been
quite limited. They are not mere reprints, but in nearly every
case have undergone revision. In the American Journal of
Semitic Languages, published under the auspices of the University
of Chicago, appeared chapters I (Oct., 1906), II (Jan., 1907),
III (Apr., 1907), V (Oct., 1907), VI (Apr., 1908), VII (Jan,
1909 and Apr, 1909), and VIII (July, 1909). Chapter IV
appeared in Vol. II of the Studies in Memory of William Eainey
Harper, published at the same University early in 1908. Chapter
IX appears here for the first time.

It is a pleasure to take this opportunity to express my gratitude
to the members of the Semitic and Old Testament Faculty of the
University of Chicago and to the Manager of the University
Press, for their encouragement and generous assistance, without
which the volume would hardly have been written.

Attention is called to the Addenda and Corrigenda at the end
of the book.

GRINDELWALD, SWITZERLAND
September 1, 1909

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

PACK

CHAPTER

I. PORTIONS OF FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXA-
PIAR VERSION

II.

ii.

in.

IV.

in.

IV.

THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF "FIRST ESDRAS" .... 11
The Two Recensions of the Ezra History . . . 11
Past and Present Theories Regarding the "Apocry
phal" Book 12

The Nature of First Esdras 18

The Origin of Our Two Recensions .... 30

III. THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 37

i. Origin of the Story 37

n. Translation 50

HI. The Interpolator's Additions 56

IV. THE APPARATUS FOR THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-

EZRA-NEHEMIAH 62

i. Nature of the Text-Critical Problem .... 63
n. Theodotion the Author of Our "Canonical" Greek

Version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh 66

The Two Main Types of the Text .... 82

1. First Esdras ......... 82

2. The Standard Text of the Second Century A. D. 87
Notes on Manuscripts and Versions .... 90

1. The Superiority of the A Manuscripts to

Those of the B Group 91

2. Hexaplar MSS of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. ... 96
3-. The Versions Made from Origen's " Septua-

gint" 99

4. The Two Main Branches of the Greek Tradi

tion 101

5. The Syrian Tradition, the Lucian Recension

and Our L Text 105

The Critical Process in Restoring the Semitic Text 113

V. THE FIRST CHAPTER OF EZRA IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM AND

SETTING 115

The Restored Hebrew Text (the Chronicler's Narra
tive of the Return from the Exile) . . . .120

Translation 132

Note A, the "Seventy Years "of Exile ... 135

Note B, the Name Sheshbazzar 136

Note C, the Number of the Temple- Vessels . . 138

xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

VI. THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 140

i. The Character of the " Official Documents " in Ezra 140

1. The Prevailing View 142

2. A Literary Habit of Ancient Narrators . . 145

3. The Tendency of the Documents . . .150
n. The Chronicler's Part in the Aramaic Portions . 157

in. The Aramaic of the Book of Ezra 161

iv. Proper Names and Foreign Words .... 166

1. Proper Names 166

2. The Foreign Words 173

v. The History of the Text of 4:6-11 178

vi. The Text of the Passages . . . . • . .183

Samaritan Intrigues Against the Building of

the Temple 184

Ezra's Credentials 196

Translation 199

VII. THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS INDEPENDENT NARRATOR . 208

i. The Chronicler's Main Purpose . . . . .208

n. The Chronicler as Editor 213

1. In the Books of Chronicles 213

2. In Ezra-Nehemiah . . . . . . .223

in. The Chronicler as Independent Narrator . . . 227

1. The Sources, Real and Imaginary, in I and II

Chron 227

2. The Chronicler's Characteristics as a Narrator 231

3. The "Ezra Memoirs" 238

4. The Chronicler's Narrative of Nehemiah . 248

VIII. THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 252

The Account of the Expedition 265

The Reading of the Law 268

The Expulsion of the Gentile Wives .... 270
The Covenant Against Gentile Marriages and in

Support of the Clergy 274

Note A, on Ezr. 10:44 278

NoteB, onNeh. 9:4 f 279

Note C, The Lacuna in Neh. 9:5 280

NoteD, onNeh. 10:1 f 282

IX. THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 285

i. Prevailing Misconceptions ..'... 285

n. The Deportation to Babylonia 290

m. The Beginning of the Hebrew Dispersion . . . 293

iv. The Reviving of Jerusalem 297

v. The Renewal of the Worship 301

1. Untrustworthy Narratives 301

2. Conditions at the Time of Haggai and

Zechariah 303

TABLE OF CONTENTS xv

CHAPTER PAGE

IX. -THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION — Continued:

vi. General Summary, 586 to 444 B.C 305

VH. The Religious Development 307

vin. Jewish Temples of the Dispersion 315

ix. The High Priests of the Second Temple . . .319

x. The Rivalry with the Samaritans 321

xi. The Date of Nehemiah 333

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 337

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA 339

INDICES 341

PORTIONS OF FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN
THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR VERSION

In the years 616 and 617 A. D., Paul of Telia made at Alexan
dria his Syriac translation of the old Greek version of the Old
Testament. The Greek text which he translated was one of great
historical importance, namely, that which constituted the "Septu-
agint" column in Origen's Hexapla. It is quite possible that
the Hexapla itself was in existence at that time (presumably at
Caesarea) ; but, however that may be, it is pretty certain that old
manuscripts transcribed directly from the original — and some of
them doubtless collated again with it, to insure the greatest pos
sible accuracy — were to be had in Alexandria. One or more of
these supposedly faithful copies formed the basis of Paul's labors.
His rendering was a closely literal one, and its characteristics are
now pretty well known.1 Every part of the Greek is reproduced
as exactly as possible, and in such a uniform and self -consistent
manner as to render this translation very easily recognizable,
wherever specimens of it are found.

The history of the manuscript transmission of this "Syro-
Hexaplar" version is a comparatively brief one, as might have
been expected. Although often copied, at least in part, it was
not as generally or as carefully preserved as the Peshitto. A
number of manuscripts containing longer or shorter portions of it
are now known to be extant. Of these, the most important by
far is the great Milan codex, published in fac-simile by Ceriani
in 1874 (Codex Syro-Hexaplaris ; published as Vol. VII of his
Monumenta sacra et prof ana). This contains the translation of
the second half of the Greek Bible ; a twin codex containing the
first half, and no doubt originally forming the first volume of this
same manuscript, was in existence as late as the sixteenth cen
tury, when it was in the possession of Andreas Du Maes (Masius)
of Amsterdam. As is well known, it has since then mysteriously
disappeared. The Maes codex was a torso, to be sure, lacking

1 See the account of this version in Swete's Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek,
pp. 112-14, and the literature cited on p. 116.

2 EZRA STUDIES

both the beginning and the end ; but in its original extent it com
bined with the Milan codex to form a whole which probably
included all of the version of Paul of Telia.

In regard to one or two of the books included in this transla
tion there are still uncertainties waiting to be cleared up. This
is especially true of the Ezra books, namely I Esdras (the "apoc
ryphal" Ezra) and II Esdras (including both the "canonical"
Ezra and Nehemiah). Just what was the disposition of these
books in Origen's Hexapla 9 What did Paul's Syriac translation
from the "Septuagint" column contain at this point? What
portion of the Syro-Hexaplar version of these books is still extant,
and what may be learned from it ?

In the Peshitto version, the Ezra books are lacking. The
Chronicler's history of Israel, Chron.-Ezra-Neh., did not form a
part of the old Syriac Bible. The same considerations which led
the Jews to append this book to their sacred writings at a very
late date, making it follow even Daniel and Esther, caused its
complete exclusion from the Edessene canon. Syriac versions of
the Ezra history are therefore rare.

First Esdras is extant, in more or less complete form, in several
Syriac manuscripts, all of which appear to contain the translation
of Paul of Telia. The manuscript which furnished the text of
this book for the London Polyglot (see also Lagarde, Libri veteris
testamenti apocryphi syriace, p. xxiv) has a title at the beginning
which says that the version of the book is "that of the Seventy" :
v>^*? Umvi\»sn ^1 ptno . |^5 j-^opo j-oks . Similar words
occur in a subscription at the end (Lagarde, ibid., p. xxvi) ; and
the same formula, again, begins and closes the extracts which I
publish here for the first time (see below). These words, wher
ever they appear in a Syriac manuscript, refer to the Hexaplar
translation. They stand in the superscription of the book of
Tobit, in the London Polyglot ; while in the Ussher codex there
is a marginal note at vii, 11 which says that the book is thus far
transcribed "from a Septuagint manuscript": 1 *i«%n4 ]^*^ ^*
(Lagarde, ibid., p. xii). In either case, whether in Tobit or in
I Esdras, examination of the character of the version shows that
it is indeed that of the bishop Paul.

First Esdras, then, stood in Origen's "LXX" column. This
we should suppose, from other evidence, to have been the case,
We know not only that the book had a place in his canon, but

FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR 3

also that he — in agreement with the church tradition — believed
it to have the right of priority over the form adopted in the Jewish
canon. And Origen was certainly not ignorant of the fact, so
widely ignored in modern times, that "I Esdras" is nothing else
than a very respectable translation of a Hebrew- Aramaic version
of the Ezra history.

The status of "Second Esdras" in the Hexapla and in Paul's
translation cannot be demonstrated absolutely, with the evidence
now available, though a tolerable degree of certainty can be
reached. No Hexaplar text of the canonical Ezra, whether Greek
or Syriac, has been known; but see now below. The only such
text of Nehemiah now recognized is the one which is published in
the following pages. In the table of contents of the lost Maes
manuscript stood simply "Ezra ;"2 according to recognized usage
this might mean (1) the apocryphal Ezra, or (2) the canonical
Ezra, or (3) both together, or (4) the combination of one or both
of them with Nehemiah. It has already been shown that the
apocryphal Ezra (I Esdras) stood in the Syro-Hexaplar transla
tion, and the text printed below shows that Nehemiah was also
included there. The "Ezra" of the Maes codex therefore un
doubtedly stood for these two books, at least. It is unfortunate
that Maes, in making his extracts for the Peculium syrorum (in
the Antwerp Polyglot) and for the Amsterdam edition of the
Critici sacri, should have left Chronicles and Ezra untouched,
although excerpting systematically every other book contained in
his manuscript !3

It is not to be doubted, finally, that the Syro-Hexaplar version
— and therefore the Maes codex — contained the canonical Ezra,
as the first part of "Second Esdras." If the Greek version of
our canonical book (and therefore, of course, of Chronicles and
Nehemiah as well) is that of Theodotion, as there are good
grounds for believing,4 and as not a few eminent scholars, from
Grotius (1644) onward, have contended, it nevertheless certainly
was not apportioned to him, nor even in any way designated as
his, in Origen's work. No one can seriously doubt, in view of all

2 See Rahlfs, in Lagarde's Bibliothecae syriacae quae ad philologiam sacram pertinent ,
pp. 32g sq.

3 Rahlfs, ibid., pp. IP '7.

* I shall discuss this question in a subsequent chapter. See the very interesting and
acute observations of Sir Henry Howorth, printed in the Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology, May and November, 1901 ; June and November, 1902; and his collection
of the external evidence.

4 EZRA STUDIES

the evidence, that the "apocryphal" Ezra was followed immedi
ately by the "canonical" Ezra in the fifth column of the Hexapla;
and that, too, without any note or comment, in spite of the fact
that the one is so nearly a replica of the other. Very likely
Origen did not know that the translation was that of Theodotion ;
as I hope to show elsewhere, there is good reason to believe that
the old translation of the Chronicler's work (with the exception
of the single fragment which had already come to be known as
I Esdras) had perished long before his time. But, be that as it
may, it is almost certain that, if he had ever expressed an opinion
as to the origin of this version, the fact would have been known
to us. It is not easy to believe, moreover, that he could have
failed to express the opinion if he had held it.

The Syriac manuscript in the British Museum numbered Add.
12,168 has been known for some time past to contain a catena of
extracts from this same lost portion of the Syro-Hexaplar version,5
namely parts of Chronicles, I Esdras, and Nehemiah, the selections
following one another in order, and amounting to a considerable
part of the whole. The canonical Ezra is not represented; un
doubtedly because it contained nothing not already found in
I Esdras, not because it was wanting in the manuscript from
which the selections were made.

The Ezra-Nehemiah excerpts begin on fol. 61 fr, with the super
scription in red : ^•sn^? UniViN^v ^| : jvp^ j-^j-o |^ka ^ .
The first selection is I Esdr. ii, 1 sq.; i. e., the beginning of the
book of Ezra proper. The contents in detail :

I Esdr. ii, 1-14. The edict of Cyrus, and its consequences.

15. Beginning of the account of the correspondence in the
time of Artaxerxes.
20-25. Conclusion of this account.

iv, 356-36, 38-40. The praise of Truth, from the story of the
Three Young Men.
49-57. The edict of Darius,
v, 46-70. Building of the altar; foundation of the temple;

building hindered by the enemies of the Jews,
vi, 1-2. Renewal of the building in the time of Darius II.
vii, 6-15. Dedication of the temple, and celebration of the Pass
over.

viii, 1-26. The scribe Ezra, and his commission from Artaxerxes.
65-69. Ezra hears of the mixed marriages, and mourns
accordingly.

5 The fact seems to have been first pointed out by Dr. Gwynn ; see Howorth, loc. cit.

FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR 5

I Esdr. viii, 88-92. Confession and repentance of the people, and the

oath administered by Ezra.
ix, 1-10. The proclamation and the assembly.

466-47. Ezra blesses God, and the people respond (from
the account of the reading of the Law = Neh. viii, 6).

It will be seen from this table of contents that the "First Book
of Ezra" here excerpted is identical, in arrangement and extent,
with our First Esdras.

Then follow the extracts from the "Second Book of Ezra,"
all of which are taken from the book of Nehemiah. These are :

Neh. i, 1-4 a. Nehemiah hears of the distress of Jerusalem.
ii, 1-8. He is sent thither by Artaxerxes.
iv, 1-3. Sanballat and his allies conspire to attack Jerusalem.

10-16. The builders of the wall prepared for battle.
vi, 15-16. The completion of the wall.
vii, 736 — viii, 18. The reading of the Law.
ix, 1-3. Confession of the people.

This Esdras-Neh. catena I copied entire in the year 1898.
I have not thought it worth while to print here the whole text of
the I Esdras selections, however, since it differs but slightly from
that already published, which is accessible in convenient form.
I have accordingly collated it with the Lagarde text, and give the
variant readings, as follows :

I Esdr. ii, 2 ^|] >o^l 3 ci? 5 ]^-*?] +1^1 6

om. o

) SP| m no 7

10 | A »|A .;A.^V 11 ^MVIV^V^V -f- a marginal note (original hand)
jn A n. A,J3 12 ]£«V>n1V> | )mN«qo] jlN^ 13 ^ooi^s] -f ^^? | j— ^0155

14 Vos 15 om. 1° A ^ * ~ *.

20 |?OT5 153-4,50 | wOoZ |3 | j_CUJaSO 21

I * * y «» ~.~ 23 ^v^-^|^ I jn.^oV^ 25

^4,5oP >ol^,9o|^5 iv, 356 ^J^.* ^L^o 36

GUI. (jU-kj-O 49 wC^So] ^CAj )"^^ wA,0^95 I )— k5001— k I I— S5J — 30—^0

50 ^,-^1? I U»"^] + ,^^oi I l^jooi-^? 51 ^^iJ 52 p^asj-h

• mVA *~> A. 53 ^ *^*^ 54 ^a— TLjL^O 55 x»n «o ^^i ^ ^Q__^_^5o|o 56

57 V_n_s I ^v^H] V, 46 V^|, m >|? 47 oij-^s] on

49 .OOL^s .001^1^ 50 l V

EZEA STUDIES

52 oJfJ? 53 j-Jrf^o 54 >a^oo|J V^Jo-j V*la^j-*?

55 o£u»£u*o I viN^H^ 56 nSn*n]o | V-i] *V?]o | % * S|? 57 jj

59 <nl^o 60 ooei o>-o I jJ<ji 2°] pai? 65 V^>o>i 66 om. «^
A^LOiiAJi + marg. note (original hand) io^au^jJ 67 ^ojo
68 %'tt* \ •» V**ul> | &4a*Ai Vi, 1 +s*4]

9^ (as conjectured in Lagarde, p. xxv)

O 2 V^J£w^-M GOT VaSJO

vii, 6 p^s | ^^a^j 8 . q \ M j-.^^ 9 U^

10 ^ m >]? 15 ^osi-^p viii, 2
5 ol^7ojJ 6 .;Sviv< I : ^ A M p] I

I ~j *• I .l^Al^ I ^oX^9oP

(marg. note, ]^) \ ]z±*r> 8 L 4 4 M ^?] | ooi? 10 j^?oci-o

Vs 12 >a^,5o| | IttnMlN 13 >ol^5o|J

| ^ v^v^;^|^« 14 |^S(ji5o 15 >n \ 4>?oj — s? 17

M^? 18 ^Voi? ocn ^? 19 |^uJas?o | J_io] l^os 22 flnnH]
marg. note, p^cu*? jzni^oz^o 23 ^QJ n s i ^?] ^ * s^? 24

marg. note, j^^cLsasp 25 j

o-S 65 ^V^A ^. 66 ^*^3 | |\lVl\? | |Zo|iCL^

67 QjoiO *±~lo 68

91
5

1°]

|ie>] 1^5 46

j] marg. note,
92 ^i^-A, | oia^o iX, 3
|£y^oja >c|^? jo^tf 7

marg. note adds

oocn 001

The extracts from Nehemiah begin on fol. 656. I print them
entire, as the first published specimen of a Hexaplar text of this
book. That we have here the version of the bishop Paul, any
student of that version will see at a glance. The idioms and
verbal order of the Greek are retained,6 compound words are
resolved in the familiar way, the Greek definite article is replaced
by the Syriac demonstrative pronoun, and so on. There are no
diacritical marks, and very likely there were none in the manu
script from which this one is an excerpt. These signs were
included in the original translation of Paul of Telia, to be sure;
but copyists were prone to omit them, as we know from the his
tory of the Greek Hexaplar codices. The character of the text

6 This was an extremely easy matter, to be sure, inasmuch as the idioms and order in
the Greek Nehemiah are generally not Greek at all, but Semitic.

FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR 7

is thus conflate, including both the Greek version selected by
Origen and also the plus of the Hebrew. See further below,
chap, iv, where some traces of the work of Aquila and Symma-
chus in Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. are also noticed.

The orthography and punctuation are, of course, those of the
manuscript itself. The words and passages here overlined are
written in red ink in the original. Notice the marks over the
two words jsi-ol? -v'« , in Neh. ii, 3, indicating that they have
been accidentally transposed.7 At the end, after ix, 3, is the sub
scription: "Here end the extracts from the Ezra of the Seventy."

FROM THE HEXAPLAR NEHEMIAH
(MS. Brit. Mus. Add. 12,168)

x ^ 0001 oj^iu^l? ^oJoi : 0^10^1 5 ^aJiTi {^9001^ ^> j) Sn ^oJ| b \] 4>
^oJoi? •
[marg.,

f^i | ^p^. |0010 ! .

^0^0 li^ou IOTI ^-nol^lo .|^Sv & 4 4 a ^
O O . ^oiolo,^ pj^l IOTI £u*| PO . )n\Vi\

J P) . J991 -i-*:-^] P [marg., i-i-*^ |
|oaO P V^= V^L^: .UP >^NNN i^i .jnS^N Zjijo3

-— i— tn-^

4 0 Q O 0 .
(fol. 66a)

7 The same sign, apparently not heretofore understood, in Josh. StyL, ed. Wright, 41, 10,
note ; where it appears that the corruption of the text had its origin in an accidental trans
position.

8 Evidently a mistake for

EZRA STUDIES

.00.^-4-^,0^ 0L*Lajo .^^5 jov^l? I'f^0?

1Z ^A^OJJ pO|-^ • (JI-iH ^— ^ ^0<TI
01— ^ I _ D3UAO . ^-J*,— 4*0 |nSV> >0, - D *-S

7 [marg.,
.5031-. VL pi UJ? 1^,^ r^lJo^J? ^

031 i-

031 |£w_
IV J03101 .

53_O A n*VM< ; 1— l«iolO | ^ Tn V/^Vo 1 ^. ^'«>|ri j L.t.**1^ -7r' L A A \*">^ M ^ V^< A.

. ._- . ,_ . | ^ W^^ |VlVlt|-a ^031 * \S

0031 v>lnN [marg.,
^031 \>? JT 4 oo . 1 1 »•,• A>O jzi-jujcc jjj^rc JLJLso^o . jlon n\? 0031

A. ajnio . |9a^£ 0031 *'1^* .aJ3io n

|o3i ,^^ V-s 11 ],**£> .0031 ^.i^l^o pil-p [marg.,

.QJ310 12 .

0310 . 0031 ^JLSO . 3lX*5 JAjflJOS '^^ JL JO31
.0331 ZO— = . j t>n4V | 1 4 >? Z

031

^ ^ . ^2 j-aJ ^ -• IOL^JO . r^2^ .n 4 1 iZZ

I ^! V^ jt— S^ '»nmV ^5 .1^4^05 0031 v>|«*«| ^031^5

I n n 1 i >o^ j-iJ^s . )^\\ ZJ^D] 031 p^-po 16 .00.

9oi (fol. 66b) iwLias oZas . 31^^,5 [marg.

FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR 9

.001— lu— a *vv*^ , 29 |o(?io 16 OOOO . |A^a-» ^—^

\ f

-*^-2

. JJ n

V^«

0 O .

73b VII
1 VIII

. O O .

^ ^ :

>CjJ i-kJ9 O01

. |_L-lo Vf-a-^ >®i— °

1> >O-OO 4 .OO
0001 Ol0£(
>•> 1*1^^ _L:
|— kj-S-JO U, n 4

.00. ^^1 O^OJO

[marg.,

O1JO

o O . J1 *i nn

) Sn % N 0071

? ]lVi\
(fol. 67a) o

. o O

Vso :

^ ^0 ^r^ I A^ Aj '

39 JJ5JO . OOCT1

*9i . | n? > P?

. -L-^,*

>o,-o

? jocno .OOOO.

looi

.^ .

_2 " ^

cr._i: :

? 0001 .c-i-k:-»|

I ^^<> o »*i ] VjsVo • 1 Mn VsT «~i j

.jj^IOO JJOL£ I^O ) >V^^1

jocn

EZRA STUDIES

cool

|Jo .

jJo . oiTi
jZollo oJ

) ^ ^

. .ocn— 1^ jooi

|li

j^atf j?

. | *^v^V

o v<^ A. i«i

| ^« A »-; | «t| v *-i
.o

? i^-^o .Lo?? l^'r^o H
. a— >A — »,|o j Vi S onaJo 16 0 O .

O 0

. | Vn t | \n^

o V^ j^o^uoo . I n ii? n

| *i no^ . | .1 .^/

| >i»n
j«t >]• | >i^

Zooio . ooi
cn |Vn *
O O O 0
. pen

|3o .

oUOaloJ?

THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF "FIRST ESDRAS"

I. THE TWO RECENSIONS OF THE EZRA HISTORY

In the case of several of the books of the Old Testament, the
Greek Bible gives us a text which differs widely from the tradi
tional Hebrew or Aramaic. In Jeremiah there has been an exten
sive transposition of chapters, so that in the second half of the
book the order in the Hebrew is altogether unlike that in the
Greek. Which, if either, of the two represents the original
order is still a matter of controversy. In Esther the Greek con
tains a number of rather long passages which are wanting in our
Hebrew and are probably secondary, even if possibly translated
from a Hebrew original. Moreover, the history of the tradition
of the text is often a very complicated one. In several cases the
Greek exists in two or more rival versions or recensions, as in the
Books of Tobit and Judith. In the case of Daniel we have three
different traditions. The oldest Greek version departs widely from
our Hebrew-Aramaic text, not only in adding or subtracting brief
passages here and there, but also in including the separate stories
of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. The later Greek Bible
effected a sort of compromise by adopting Theodotion's transla
tion of our massoretic Hebrew and yet retaining the added stories.

Now in the latter part of the Chronicler's history of Israel, in
the section dealing with the return from the exile, the rebuilding
of the temple, and the work of Ezra, almost exactly the same thing
has happened as in the case of Daniel. The old Greek translation,
with its transpositions, its one long interpolation, and its other
minor peculiarities, was in strong disagreement with the Hebrew
text which was preferred in Palestine in the second century A. D.,
and which soon came to hold the field as the only authoritative
form of the narrative. Accordingly, a later translation, based on
this massoretic Hebrew, was put into circulation in place of the
older version, and soon supplanted it in every region where the
Greek Bible was in use. There seems to be good reason to believe
that this later translation was the work of Theodotion, whose
version thus, in the case of the book Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah,

12 EZRA STUDIES

occupies a place in our modern Greek Old Testament precisely
similar to that which it occupies in the case of Daniel. The dis
cussion of this question will be reserved for another place. At
all events, the old version was so effectually superseded that it
very narrowly missed being lost altogether; in this fact, again,
furnishing a close parallel to the history of the Daniel text.

There is to be noticed, at the outset, one important point in
which the case of the rival recensions of the Ezra story differs
from the other cases with which it has just been compared. In
Jeremiah the transpositions, though extensive, were compara
tively harmless. They brought about no serious contradiction or
improbability. In Daniel and Esther the additions, though
extensive, were not such as to interfere in the least with the prin
cipal narrative. They were simply joined on externally, and exer
cised no influence on their surroundings. But the two recensions
of the narrative dealing with the restoration of the Jews and the
work of Ezra could not stand thus peaceably side by side, for the
one gives the lie to the other. As for the transpositions, they
are effected in the middle of a connected history, with dates,
successive kings, and a necessary order of events. It makes
comparatively little difference whether Jer. 31 comes before
or after Jer. 41, or even whether in I Kings, chap. 20 pre
cedes or follows chap. 21; but it makes all the difference in the
world whether the train of exiles described in Ezra, chap. 2,
received permission to return from Cyrus or from Darius. And
as for the one addition, the Story of the Three Youths, the pro
verbial bull in the china shop could not do more thorough and
more vociferous damage. Every adjacent portion of the history
is either stood on its head or else reduced to fragments.

Yet the tradition of the Greek church, with one voice, names
this troublesome fragment "First Esdras," while the version
which faithfully renders our massoretic text is only given second
place. Josephus, as is well known, believed its version of the
post-exilic history to be the correct one, and so, doubtless, did
the most of his contemporaries, even in orthodox Jewish circles.

II. PAST AND PRESENT THEORIES REGARDING THE

"APOCRYPHAL" BOOK

"First Esdras," or "Third Ezra," or "The Apocryphal Ezra,"
or "The Greek Ezra," as it has been variously called, has had an
interesting history. There is probably no one of all The Old

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 13

Testament writings which has been so inadequately studied, and
which is so seriously misunderstood among Old Testament schol
ars at present. St. Jerome put the tremendous weight of his
authority against it (in his Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah : Nee
quemquam moveat quod units a nobis liber editus est, nee apo-
cryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur; quia et apud He-
braeos Esdrae Nehemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarc-
tantur, et quae non habentur apud illos, nee de viginti quatuor
senibus sunt, procul dbjicienda), and his word was law, as usual,
for the Latin church from the Middle Ages onward, and exercised
a profound influence over the whole western world. The book
was excluded from the Complutensian Polyglot (1514—17), and
was not even admitted by the Council of Trent (1516) ;* in printed
editions of the Vulgate it is given place in an appendix at the end
of the Bible, after the New Testament. By modern scholars gen
erally this "apocryphal book" is not regarded as a survival from
the old Greek version of this portion of the Old Testament, nor
even as the part of a recension which once included all of Ezra
and Nehemiah; on the contrary, it is believed to be a later
free compilation made with a "tendency." That is, just
as the Chronicler, in his day, edited and expanded certain parts
of the history of Israel into a book which should inculcate his own
views, so (according to the generally accepted theory) a later and
unknown writer selected that part of the history which "began"
with Josiah's passover (as though this were a natural beginning!)
and ended with the career of Ezra, and rewrote it, with certain
significant changes and additions, according to his own purpose.
This view is altogether mistaken, but it is the only one which
has any recognition at the present time. All of the modern text
books of Introduction, commentaries, and encyclopaedia articles,
whether English, German, or French, speak of the "author" of
First Esdras, and of his probable "purpose" in making this COm-
^t is singular that the belief should have had such wide currency, at this time, that
First Esdras did not exist in Greek. Thus Lupton, in his Introduction to First Esdras
(Speaker's Commentary), p. 5, quotes the remark prefixed to the Latin version of the book
in the noted Latin Bible edited and published by Stephanus at Paris in 1557: " Hujus libri
ne Graecum quidem codicem, nedum Hebraeum nemini (quod sciam) videre contigit.'1'' The
form of the quotation which I give is that of the original, of which I have a copy. Lupton
is mistaken, however, in supposing that this note is to be attributed to the scholar Vatablus
(whose name is used in an unwarranted way by the editor of this Bible) ; nor can it have
come from Claudius Badwell, who did indeed prepare the translation of the Apocrypha for
this Bible (see LeLong-Masch, Bibl. Sacra, II, p. 480), but only of the books which stood in
the Complutensian Polyglot. The remark is to be attributed to Stephanus himself or to
one of his unnamed helpers.

14 EZRA STUDIES

pilation. The question is even seriously discussed whether this
"author" (1) made up his book from our canonical Greek ver
sion of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah; or (2) made use of an inde
pendent Greek version; or (3) made his own translation from the
Hebrew-Aramaic original. That he made his "compilation" in
Greek is taken for granted, since it is the general belief that the
interpolated Story of the Three Youths, as we have it, is not a
translation from a Semitic original. It is a fact that speaks
volumes for the general neglect of the book, that Schtirer in both
the first and second editions of his Geschichte maintained the
view that First Esdras was compiled from our canonical Greek
Old Testament — though any well-equipped university student
could demonstrate the contrary to a certainty by an afternoon's
work on any chapter in the book.

To illustrate a little further the current view, and the treatment
now given to this "apocryphon" by Old Testament scholars:
The DeWette-Schrader Einleitung (8th ed., 1869, p. 565) bravely
confessed inability to recognize the purpose of the "author" of
First Esdras in compiling it, remarking: "Ein Zweck dieser
characterlosen Compilation lasst sich nicht entdecken;" but the
great majority are content to repeat over, each from his fellow,
Bertholdt's naive hypothesis that the writer intended to provide
a history of the temple from the latter part of the regal period
down to the time when the cultus had been restored. Kosters,
in his Wiederherstellung Israels in der persischen Periode
(German trans, by Basedow, pp. 124-26), unfolded a much more
elaborate theory — with even less support from the document
itself. Of course, the abrupt ending of the "book" (in the middle
of a sentence!) has been generally noticed, though few have
made any attempt to explain it. Ewald's conjecture, that the
work was left unfinished by "its author," is frequently repeated,
e. g., by Strack, Einleitung*, p. 152 ("Das Buch, welches von
seinem Verfasser nicht vollendet worden zu sein scheint," etc.),
and by Guthe, in Kautzsch's Apokryphen des A. T., p. 2. In
most textbooks of Introduction to the Old Testament First Esdras
is ignored — as though it stood in no close relation to the Old
Testament ! — and this, too, even by those who profess to believe
that it represents a Hebrew-Aramaic text differing in many
respects from our massoretic recension. In CornilFs Einleitung*,
for example, it receives not a syllable of mention. In Driver's

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 15

Introduction it is given a brief note at the end of the chapter on
Ezra and Nehemiah. By commentators the two "books," Ezra
and First Esdras, are usually kept entirely separate. If the com
mentaries on Chronicles and on Ezra-Nehemiah mention First
Esdras at all, it is only as a curiosum. Bertholet, in his com
mentary on Ezra and Nehemiah (in Marti's Kurzer Hand-Corn-
mentar), does, indeed, devote a section to the Greek Ezra in his
introduction, pp. xvi, xvii, but his statements regarding it are
notably confused and ill-digested, while in the commentary itself
he makes no serious attempt to use it. In general, his attitude
toward the apocryphon is characteristic of a certain irresponsible
method of dealing with sources which is far too prevalent in modern
Old Testament criticism: any comparison of the Greek Esdras
text, in occasional difficult passages, is a work of supererogation,
of which the commentator may boast; the idea that he is in duty
bound to consult it all the time, and to make a really critical study
of it does not suggest itself.

The commentaries on* First Esdras, again, have not brought us
far toward an understanding of its origin and true character; as
might be expected from the fact that all the commentators have
believed the book to be simply a late and "historically worthless"
compilation. The parallel portions of the canonical books are only
occasionally consulted, and then in the most perfunctory way. In
the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen
des A. jT., by Fritzsche-Grimm — the one thoroughgoing and
scholarly commentary on the Old Testament Apocrypha, but now
long outgrown — the treatment of First Esdras (by Fritzsche) is
below the level of the rest ; chiefly, no doubt, for the reason already
given. No commentary on the book that has appeared since that
date (1851) is worthy of serious attention. Lupton, in Wace's
Speaker's Commentary (1888), is very superficial; and both he
and Zockler (1891) are equal to the feat of subjecting the book
to a fresh study without even finding out that it offers us a sepa
rate, extra-canonical translation from the Semitic! In the critical
examination of text and versions next to nothing has been done,
though this is a most promising field for investigation. The state
ments as to these things which now and then appear are for the
most part either false or inaccurate. Fritzsche (Comm., p. 9)
asserted that the best text of First Esdras is to be found in the
uncial B and the cursives 52 and 55, and this most misleading

16 EZRA STUDIES

statement has been industriously copied by his successors, no one
taking the trouble to test the matter. In the second edition of
CorniU's Einleitung, p. 268, one could even read that Jerome(!)
was the author of the Vulgate version of our apocryphon. Nestle
(Marginalien und Materialien, p. 29, n. 2) says that "the Lucian
recension" (meaning the text printed in Lagarde's Librorum vet.
test, canonicorum pars prior graece) furnished the basis of the
Syriac translation; a theory which would seem plausible for the
first nine verses of the first chapter, but from that point on is seen
to be absolutely false. There has not even been made a careful
comparison of the two Greek versions, the canonical and
the apocryphal, as they stand in our printed Greek Bibles, to
say nothing of inquiries as to their nature, history, and mutual
relations. Even for the restoration of the massoretic Hebrew text
of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, no critical use of even the current
Greek text of First Esdras has ever been made. A few (most
recently Guthe, in the Polychrome Bible) have included "The
Greek Ezra" in their apparatus in a more or less haphazard and
superficial way, but such attempts as these can have no consider
able value.

The one scholar who in recent times has defended the view
that First Esdras represents a Greek translation which is older
than the one contained in the corresponding books of our canoni
cal Greek Bible is Sir Henry Howorth, who has argued the case
more than once,1* with much learning and acumen. This view had
been held, in one form or another, by not a few scholars ; among
them Grotius, in his annotations, 1644 ; Whiston, Essay towards
Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament, 1722 ; Pohlmann,
"Ueber das Ansehen des apokr. iii. Buchs Esras," Tubing, theol.
Quartalschrift, 1859, pp. 257-75; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes
Israel, IV, 1864, p. 166 ; and Lagarde, Psalterium, Hieronymi,
1874, p. 162, note. No one of these scholars, however, set forth
the view so fully and vigorously as Howorth, nor do they seem to
have appreciated, as he has, the great importance of this conclu
sion. Nevertheless, the proof which Howorth has been able to
bring forward is by no means conclusive ; the skeptic would not

2 In the Academy, 1893, January 7 and 21, February 4 and 25, April 15, June 17, July 22 ;
in the Transactions of the Ninth International Congress of Orientalists at London, Vol. II
(1893), pp. 69-85 ; and (most fully, and including the substance of all the previous articles)
in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, May, 1901, pp. 147-59, November,
1901, pp. 305-30, June, 1902, pp. 147-72, and November, 1902, pp. 332-56.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 17

be compelled by it. He does, indeed, show with a formidable
array of evidence that the canonical recension of Chron.-Ezr.-
Neh. might well be much later than the First Esdras recension,
but he fails to show that it is in fact later. His assumption (Pro
ceedings Soc. Bib. Arch., May, 1901, p. 151), that any Greek
translation which closely follows the text of our present Hebrew
Bible must be derived from Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion, will
hardly be accepted by those who have carefully studied the Greek
Old Testament. He assumes, in like manner, that the canonical
Greek version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. is the work of Theodotion —
as Grotius, Whiston, and Pohlmann had conjectured before him —
but without being able to bring forward any shred of evidence in
favor of this opinion, beyond the fact that Theodotion's version of
Daniel has found a place in our Greek Bible. The one prime
necessity — if the current beliefs as to the Ezra books are to be
superseded — is a well-grounded and plausible theory of
the origin and mutual relations of the two recensions
now existing. Such a theory has never been formulated,3 and
Howorth has failed to provide one. His main conclusions, touch
ing these matters, are the following: (1) First Esdras gives us
the original form of this history ; that is, (a) the order in our
apocryphon (Ezr. 4 : 7-24 following Ezr. 1 : 11, and Neh. 7 : 73—
8 : 12 following Ezr. 10 : 44) is the primary and correct one ; and
(6) the Story of the Three Youths formed a part of the history
as it was compiled by its author. (Howorth makes no attempt to
prove that our Greek text of the story is a translation from the
Semitic, though this proof — which has never been supplied—
is essential to his theory.) (2) Origen, or perhaps "his editors,"
made our First Esdras by cutting a piece out of the middle of the
"Septuagint"4 version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., and then editing and
correcting it to some extent. (3) Our canonical Ezra-Nehemiah
is the result of a thoroughgoing and arbitrary re-arrangement of
the text, undertaken by the Jewish rabbis, who (a) knew nothing
of Darius (II) Nothus, and (b) wished to identify Zerubbabel

3 The theory which is set forth in the following pages was presented in full at the meet
ing of the American Oriental Society at Andover, Mass., in April, 1896, but was not printed.

4 I suppose that Howorth means by "the Septuagint" that Greek translation of Chron.-
Ezr.-Neh. which was the first to gain wide currency. I do not understand him to imply the
belief that all— or even most— of the books of the Old Testament were translated at the
same time, or by the same persons, or in any official or uniform way. Would it not be better,
in the interest of clearness and accuracy, to cease altogether from using the term "Septu
agint" in scientific treatise?

18 EZRA STUDIES

with Sanabassar, and (c) had various prejudices which led them
to make deliberate and extensive alterations in the story of Neher
miah. These conclusions each and all present such serious diffi
culties that, in my opinion, even the view now generally held,
with all its absurdities, would be likely to maintain its ground in
the face of them.

III. THE NATURE OF FIRST ESDRAS

The main facts regarding the true character of our "apocry
phal" Ezra book may be stated briefly as follows : It is simply
a piece taken without change out of the middle of a faithful Greek
translation of the Chronicler's History of Israel in the form which
was generally recognized as authentic in the last, century B. C.
This was not, however, the original form of the History, but one
ivhich had undergone several important changes.

As is well known, the apocryphal book and the canonical book
are, in the main, merely duplicate versions. But probably many
fail to realize how close the duplication is. First Esdras contains
a long passage, including chaps. 3, 4, and the first six verses of
chap. 5, which is not found in the canonical recension. Aside
from this, however, its material contents are exactly those of the
corresponding parts of Ezra-Nehemiah. Beginning with the last
two chapters of II Chronicles, it then includes the whole of the
book of Ezra, and continues with a portion of the Ezra narrative5
which is now in our book of Nehemiah, namely, Neh. 8 : 1-12
and the beginning of the first clause of verse 13, where the frag
ment ends. In every part of all this history the two recensions
generally agree with each other sentence for sentence and clause
for clause. In the cases where they fail to agree the differences
are due to the usual accidents of manuscript transmission, or to
mistakes made by the one or the other translator. The uni
versally accepted view, that First Esdras is a free translation,
or a free working-over ("freie Bearbeitung " ) of the material,
is mistaken. The translation is close, and the text as a whole has
not been "edited," nor freely handled.

In investigating First Esdras, then, the all-important point of
approach is the Story of the Three Youths, which at present stands
only in this recension. We need a satisfactory theory of its origin

5 As I have shown elsewhere, the passage Neh. 7 : 70—8 : 18 originally formed a part of
the Chronicler's story of Ezra (following Ezra 8), and was accidentally transposed to
the place where it now stands. See my Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah,
pp. 29-34. I shall return to this subject later.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 19

and history, and especially to know who incorporated it in this
narrative, whether the Chronicler or some later hand. And this
necessarily involves the further question, whether the original
language of this episode — or, rather, the language in which it
stood at the time when it was incorporated — was Semitic or
Greek. If it never existed in Semitic form, then it certainly never
was inserted by the Chronicler in his own book, nor could it ever
have formed a part of any Semitic recension of these narratives
of the Jewish exiles. On the other hand, if it can plausibly be
maintained that the Greek text of the story, as we have it, is a
translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic, then we have at hand
the solution of some of the chief problems in this literary tangle.
It is fortunately possible to decide at once the question as to
the Chronicler, while holding the question of the original language
still in abeyance. The form of this history contained in I Esdr.,
chaps. 2-5, cannot possibly have been the form given it by its
author. So scholars of all times have agreed, with hardly a dis
senting voice, and for reasons that are conclusive. In the first
place, the Artaxerxes correspondence, 2 : 15-25 (= Ezra 4 : 6-24),
is palpably misplaced here. It constitutes, to be sure, a very good
introduction to the Story of the Three Youths, which immediately
follows, but forms in no sense the continuation of 2 : 1—14, where
the narrative is obviously cut short in the middle. Again, the
Story of the Youths is itself a disturbing element, and the disturb
ance this time is far more serious. The presence of this story
inevitably turns the whole history upside down, bringing
in contradictions and absurdities from which there is no escape.
To mention only a single point : The events narrated in 5 : 46-
70 [47-73] (notice verses 53 [55], 68 [71], and 70 [73]!) are
events of the reign of Cyrus, even in this recension ! There is no
way of making them anything else, or of supposing that they were
ever written in any other way. It is not easy to believe that any
compiler of a serious history could make such an outrageous blun
der as this. What is more, the episode of the Youths cannot be
made to fit in anywhere else. Whoever tests the matter will
speedily find that there is no point, before, in, or after Ezra
1-6, at which this episode is a possibility ; at that, too, even if the
name of the king be changed from "Darius" to some other name.
Removed to any other place, it causes even greater disturbance
than it makes at present.

20 EZRA STUDIES

Obviously, the story was not written for any such context as
this; and it is equally obvious that the writer of this context had
no thought of fitting it to contain the episode. The conclusion is
certain, that the Story of the Three Youths is an interpolation,
not a part of the history as it was originally composed. In view
of the manifest traces of the Chronicler's hand in the extra-
canonical verses just following the episode and serving to
connect it with the canonical narrative (see below), the question
might seem for a moment to be a legitimate one, whether the
Chronicler himself may not have made the insertion, as an after
thought. But no one who gives the matter serious consideration
will continue to entertain this hypothesis. The Chronicler is a
writer of very considerable skill, who composed this history with
a definite purpose, of which he never lost sight. He is most
methodical in his literary habits, and we know him to be one who
incorporated documentary sources in the way best suited to his
own ends. He had himself carefully composed this most important
narrative of the return (so essential to his pet theory!), writing
it out, with vivid detail, in his own words (as scholars agree). It
is not reasonable to suppose that he could have undone his own
work and have given the lie to his own history in so stupid a
manner, by squeezing in this unnecessary episode in an impossible
place.6 It was not by the Chronicler, then, but by a later hand,
that the story was interpolated.

The important question now arises, whether the interpolation
was made in the original Hebrew- Aramaic text of the history, or
in the Greek translation. It is characteristic of the general neglect
which First Esdras has suffered, that no one has recently under
taken to determine, by examining the evidence, in what language
the Story of the Three Youths was originally written. It is
generally taken for granted that the language was Greek, and
one scholar after another asserts this with confidence. Fritzsche
(Handbuch, p. 6) wrote: "Ein hebraisches Original lag nicht zu
Grunde, die Sprache verrath sich durchaus als ursprtinglich
hellenistisch ; nur der Schluss, 5:1-6, macht eine Ausnahme,
und von diesem besitzen wir das Original nicht mehr." This

6 If the story had been generally believed in his day, he would have known it when he
composed his history. If it was not generally believed, he was under no necessity of inserting
it. From our knowledge of the Chronicler, we should not expect the story to interest him
especially. And finally, if he had wished to insert it in his completed book, he might easily
have prepared a suitable place for it.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 21

opinion has been adopted, as usual, by Fritzsche's successors;
thus Schiirer, Reuss, Konig, Zockler, Lupton, Cornill ("ohne
Zweifel griechisch geschrieben " ) , Guthe ("sicher griechisch"),
Bertholet, and many others. Most of these, it should be noted,
make an exception of the passage 5:1-6, which (like Fritzsche)
they believe to have been translated from a Hebrew original.
Howorth asserts that the story was written in a "Semitic" lan
guage (of course, his theory of the book requires this), but does
not attempt to go farther. Ball, in his notes in The Variorum
Apocrypha (1892), suggested one or two hebraisms in these
chapters, but did not thereby make a Semitic original seem
probable. Renan (Hist, du peuple dlsrael, IV, p. 180, note)
said, in speaking of I Esdr., chaps. 3 and 4: "The original was
certainly Hebrew."

As for the Greek in which I Esdr. 3:1 — 5:6 now stands, those
who believe it to be more idiomatic than the ordinary "translation
Greek" of the Old Testament are mistaken. It stands, in this
regard, on exactly the same plane as the old Greek version of
Daniel, or that of the books of the Kings, or of First Maccabees.
From the beginning to the end, it shows an unbroken succession
of Semitic idioms, reproduced with a faithfulness which is often
very clumsy, and in several cases giving plain evidence of mis
translation. It is true that the subject-matter (namely, in
the section 3:18 — 4:32) is unlike anything else in the Old Testa
ment; and it is this fact, unquestionably, which misled Fritzsche
into making his extraordinary remark about the language of the
document. But if any student of the Greek Bible will look
closely at the idiom of these two chapters, he will find it precisely
the same which elsewhere results from a close rendering of a
Hebrew or Aramaic original. Again, though as regards subject-
matter and mode of treatment the section just named happens to
stand alone in our Old Testament literature, it is by no means
true that it has a "Hellenistic" sound. All those who are familiar
with Semitic modes of thought and literary forms will recognize
here a characteristic Semitic product.

The fact must not be overlooked, that the first six verses of
chap. 5 are almost universally pronounced a translation from a
Semitic original, as above noted. The fact usually is overlooked.
Those who make the exception straightway forget it, and certainly
never attempt to explain it. On what theory can this translated

22 EZRA STUDIES

"fragment" be accounted for? At present it plays a very impor
tant part in helping to connect the Story of the Youths with the
Hebrew narrative 5: 7 ff. ( = Ezra 2: 1 ff.). Its points of affinity
with either section are obvious, and certainly not accidental. It
sounds as though it were of one piece with the verses which imme
diately follow it, as well as with those which immediately precede
it; and as for the Three Youths, there is an express allusion to
them (somewhat parenthetical, to be sure) in vs. 6. But what
end this passage of six verses may have served when connected
with neither portion ofdts present context, no one, so far as I
know, has ever ventured to guess. Of course, if the Episode of
the Youths were originally written in Greek, it would follow that
these six verses must have belonged to an entirely separate docu
ment. As for the following narrative (the Chronicler's), if
this passage (5: 1—6) originally formed a part of it, how has it
disappeared from our canonical book? And if it did not origi
nally belong to it, how in the world can it have been detached
from its proper surroundings and brought to this place ? Guthe's
amazing suggestion (Kautzsch's Apokryplien, p. 2) that it was
composed by "the redactor" (!) certainly needs no refutation.
The passage bears no resemblance whatever to an editorial patch.
Nor is any theory of an isolated fragment plausible. We are not
driven to any such strait as this, that we should be obliged to
postulate a losl; narrative of a return of Jews from Babylonia,
written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, and now surviving
only in these six verses! There is a far simpler hypothesis.
Just as soon as it is observed that the Greek of this passage is the
result of translation, it becomes probable that the Story of the
Youths was incorporated in a Semitic form.

There is still other important evidence of this nature pointing
to the same conclusion. The latter part of chap. 4 cannot so
easily be separated from the first part of chap. 5. There is no
perceptible break, nor anything to make it probable that two
separate documents are joined at this point. The two concluding
verses of chap. 4 cannot have formed the end of a piece of narra
tive. The closing words of verse 63, "and they feasted . . . .
seven days,"'1 make it plain that their author intended to narrate
what took place after the seven days. And in like manner the
first words of 5:1, "After this there were chosen," etc., presuppose
the words which just precede them. The two parts agree per-

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 23

fectly, and any attempt to pull them apart has the presumption
strongly against it. Two documents were united, beyond doubt,
somewhere in this vicinity, but it was not at this point. And
again, the evidence of translation from a Semitic original is quite
as noticeable in the latter part of chap. 4 as it is in 5: 1-6.
Observe, for example, the idiom in vs. 63: teal TO lepov ov ayvo/jida-Orj
TO ovofjia avTov eir aurw; and similarly in vs. 54: ev TIVL \aTpev-
ovauv ev avTrj. Now although these verses do not belong to the
unexpanded Story of the Three Youths (which, as will be shown
presently, ends at 4: 42), they belong to the context in which it
was imbedded. Moreover, in some of the verses which now form
a part of the Story, and can only have been written in continua
tion of it, the marks which indicate the work of a translator are
plainly to be seen. The verses 4: 44-46, 57, for example, in the
sustained awkwardness with which they render Semitic idioms —
and probably reproduce Semitic blunders — could easily be paral
leled in other specimens of "translation Greek," but hardly in
Greek of any other type.

The antecedent probability, from every side, of a Semitic ori
ginal for the Episode is thus overwhelming, and we may fairly
take for granted, at the outset, the fact of translation (substi
tuting "ohne Zweifel semitisch" for "ohne Zweif el griechisch " ) .
Only very strong evidence in the Greek text of 3 : 1 — 4 : 42, such
evidence, namely, as to show that it could not have been the
work of a translator, could suffice to shake this probability; and
such evidence, as has already been said, is not to be had.

It only remains to determine whether the original language
was Hebrew or Aramaic. This question, usually a very difficult
one, is here rendered easy of answer by the use of the Greek word
roVe, in 3: 4, 8; 4: 33, 41, 42, 43, 47, which points plainly to an
Aramaic original. The only places in the Greek Old Testament
in which roVe, "then," "thereupon," is consistently used to con
tinue a narrative are the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra
and this Story of the Three Youths. The usage is neither Greek
nor Hebrew; the word can stand only for the Aramaic f"Itf (or
yH&O). It is not a question of one or two occurrences, such as
can be found here and there in all Greek literature; the word
appears again and again, all through the narrative, in every one
of these sections in which the Greek is translated from Aramaic,
but does not appear similarly anywhere else. In this Story there

24 EZRA STUDIES

is very little narrative, the space being occupied with discourses,
letters and decrees, and the like ; but wherever the story is resumed
(notice especially 4: 41-47) we are pretty sure to see sentences
and paragraphs headed by rare.

Among the other marks of translation, the following are note
worthy :

3:3. teal egvTrvos eyevero is quite impossible. The king is
(and must be, for the sake of the story) sound asleep until vs. 13;
cf. vss. 8 and 9! Those who were "waking" were the three men7
who constituted his body-guard. The original text may have read
in some such way as this: K^/J^b^ nnbn THJd Yin "T^XTO5! ,

T - •• \ T T : ' • - •• -: i • T : •

"Thereupon the three youths bestirred themselves" (or "stood
on guard"). The change would then have been very easy, since
"TlfcQ almost invariably (but not always; see Dan. 7: 11) begins
the sentence.

3:5. eva \oyov. The customary use of in in the place of an
indefinite article. So also 4:18.

3:5. 05 vTrepio-xya-ei is a sure mistranslation. It should be rt
v7repi,Gr%vei, "what thing is the strongest," see vss. 10—12. The
Aramaic probably had "H fp-2 .

3:12. vwep Se Trdvra vuca f) a\r)6eia. The vTrep is impossible
in Greek, as commentators have remarked (see especially Fritz-
sche). It is simply the translation of bj, with which the verb
fiUDft!"! is regularly construed; cf. Dan. 6:4.

4:14. TroXXot is an obvious (and quite natural) mistranslation
of "^"Q""!. The meaning in the original was "men are mighty"
not "men are numerous;" cf. vs. 2.

4:15, 16. The translator has here given us a false rendering
and an incorrect division of clauses. Instead of our meaning
less text, we must put a comma after @acri\ea, and then read:
Kal Tra? 6 Xao<? 65 Kvptevet, rf)<; OaXdo-arj^ /cal TT}? 7775 ef avrwv
eyevero. Cf. again vs. 2. The mistranslation is one of a very
common type.

4:17. Is it possible that we have here a double rendering?
Some such word as &O~n , or KIIMlTZJ , for example, would
account for both o-roXa? and Sdgav, the one translation being lit
eral and the other interpretative. The crroXat are not needed
here. Compare the uses of the Hebrew words *nH , ^3£ , and
, and the (mistranslated) verse I Mace. 14:9.

7 Ordinarily called "pages" because of the misunderstanding of this verse.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 25

4:31. ical TT/OO? TOVTOLS. Probably for JlD1! QT1, which should
here have been translated "and in spite o/this."

4:37. /cal ov/c eariv should probably be el ov/c eariv. The
original may well have been KBllftp "p»~Q nlH^ tfb*] ; all men and
all their works are evil, "if truth be not in them;" or the initial
letter of "H , "if," may have fallen out accidentally after the last
letter of the preceding word (roiavra = HDl or TOH).

4: 39. ra Si/caia TTOiel airo Trdvrcov TWV aSi/ccw real Trovrjpcov. The
CLTTO is a monstrosity here; see the commentaries. The Lagarde
text, Sbcata iroiel, /cal airo TTCLVIWV TWV aBitccov /cal Trovrjpwv aTre^ercu,
is arbitrarily corrected, as the evidence of manuscripts and ver
sions shows conclusively. Fritzsche thinks it likely that some
Hebrew idiom "schwebte dem Verfasser vor," but confesses his
inability to find an example of it in our Hebrew Bible. We have
precisely this idiom in biblical Aramaic, in Ezra 7:26. The
original text here was therefore undoubtedly "jp "Q3? &W^ "Jib

aWTiTfi fiPTZra VinbS ; Truth is no respector of persons, "but
T - . - . T - . T

executes judgment upon all evil and wicked men." The
Latin and Syriac versions render correctly.

These examples will suffice. The Story of the Three Youths
was written in Aramaic, and was inserted by a redactor in the
Hebrew- Aramaic text of the Chronicler's history.

The process of combining the two narratives necessarily
involved some harmonistic labors on the part of the redactor.
The Story, in its original form, does not seem to have made any
mention of the Jews. As far as 4:42 — where it may well have
ended — it contains not a word to give it connection with Jewish
history or interests, with the exception of the single parenthetical
clause in vs. 11, 01)709 eariv ZopofilafieX (b^QIT &OH), which has
been universally recognized as an addition by a later hand. It
may well be that this very brief, but very potent, gloss antedates
the expanded form of the Story, and in fact was the ultimate
cause of its inclusion in a history of the Jewish people; but, be
that as it may, it is pretty certain that the expansion itself,
through which the Story was made into a tale of exiles return
ing to Jerusalem by royal decree, was the work of the self
same redactor who interpolated it in the Chronicler's book.

Now it must be remembered that the Chronicler himself is
giving, at this very point, an account of a return of exiles from
Babylonia; and, what is more, that the leaders of his expedition

26 EZRA STUDIES

are Jeshua and Zerubbabel. The last portion of his narrative
preceding the interpolated matter is 2:1-14 (=Ezra, chap. 1).
In this he had told of the proclamation of King Cyrus, and how
the Jews prepared to obey it; then, further, how the king brought
out the sacred vessels belonging to the temple in Jerusalem
(which are fully described and numbered), and delivered them
into the hand of a Jewish prince named Sheshbazzar. At this
point the narrative is interrupted by the interpolation.
The next portion of the history which is certainly known to come
from the hand of the Chronicler is the list, 5 : 7-42 ( = Ezra
2:1-67), and where the narrative is resumed at the close of the
list it appears that the returning exiles are already in Jerusalem.
This is a surprising leap, especially for such a narrator as the
Chronicler. We should certainly expect him to describe, with
some detail, the starting of the expedition; to make express men
tion of the two leaders, Jeshua and Zerubbabel, whom he else
where makes so prominent; to tell of the provision made by the
king — and afterward referred to — for the aid of the Jews and
especially for the building of the temple; and so on.8 The prob
ability at once suggests itself, that a part of the Chronicler's nar
rative is contained in the long sequel to the Story of the Three
Youths, that is, in the section 4:43 — 5:6.

It would, of course, be the wish of the interpolator to use the
original narrative as far as possible; and in this case that would
be especially easy, since all the circumstances, and even the names
(excepting only the name of the king), are identical. This prob
ability becomes much stronger as soon as we observe the peculiar
way in which the expansion of the Story has been effected. As was
remarked above, it has been left absolutely untouched — saving
the gloss of two words in 4:13 — all the way from the beginning,
3:1, to 4:42, which is evidently the last verse of the original
story which we have. It would have been an easy matter, and,
we should say, most desirable, to add a bit of Jewish color
ing, especially at the beginning, if only in order to make the con
nection more plausible. But the redactor took his task very
easily, and apparently limited his own editorial additions to what
was absolutely necessary. In view of this, it is surprising to find
that the extra-canonical matter constituting the sequel to the
Story occupies twenty-seven verses — about half the extent of the

8 See my brief statement of the case in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1897
pp. 168-70.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 27

Story itself. And who is this who now begins to write at such
length, and so methodically, what sounds like a piece of carefully
composed history (vss. 47 ft'.), and with such disproportionate
interest in "the priests and the Levites" (vss. 52-56) and in
"instruments of music" (4: 63, 5:2) ? These are the pet interests
of the Chronicler himself; his peculiar property, in fact.

There is, indeed, plain evidence of composition in this long
sequel, 4:43-^5:6, showing that it consists of the work of the
interpolator plus the work of the Chronicler. In the verse 5:6,
especially, we can see how a harmonistic gloss has been added to
the original text. The date, as it stands, is altogether out of
place; and, indeed, it is difficult to imagine a reason for telling
in any place the day of the month on which Zerubbabel made his
successful speech. The words just preceding the date, "he who
spoke wise words before Darius," are an obvious gloss, the last of
the redactional patches by means of which the two documents
were combined. This statement of year, month, and day was
originally the Chronicler's date of the return from Baby
lon. Commentators have wondered why such a date was missing,
in this history in which month and day of the month are never
wanting, and on this occasion which overshadowed all others in
importance. Verse 6 originally read: "in the second year of the
reign of Cyrus, the king of Persia,9 in the month Nisan, on the
first day10 of the month." The interpolator was, of course, obliged
to alter "Cyrus" to "Darius" (as also in 5:2), and the insertion
of his gloss necessitated a slight change in the wording of the
sentence. Whoever examines 5:1-6 closely will see that it is
written throughout in the characteristic phrases of the Chronicler,
and this is true also of much of the latter part of chap. 4. The
redactor's part is, indeed, as we were led to expect, a compara
tively small one. Two brief passages, purely harmonistic, and
easily recognized, are all that he has added, namely, vss. 43-46
(with the first clause of vs. 47) and vss. 57-61.11

This conclusion, as to the Chronicler's authorship of 4: 47-56
in particular, receives important confirmation from without. In

9 The phrase "king of Persia," 0"1D "|b"52 , is a well-known mark of the Chronicler's
hand.

10 In the Greek, rov irpurov M^OS, " the first month," is derived by some mistake from
TUTnb "in&O' as many have observed.

11 These two patches, small as they are, contain some things of interest. Observe the
statement regarding the Edomites, in vs. 45, and the very unusual phrase "king of heaven,"
in vss. 46 and 58.

28 EZRA STUDIES

Ezra 3: 7 we are told how cedar- wood for the building of the
temple was brought to the Jews from Lebanon " according to the
grant which they had from Cyrus, king of Persia;" but the pre
ceding narrative, in our canonical recension, contains no record of
any such grant. But in this fragment of the Chronicler's history
which survives in First Esdras, in 4:48, we have the edict to
which reference was made: "He (Cyrus) wrote letters also unto
.... those that were in Lebanon, that they should bring cedar-
wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem." Again in Ezra 3:1 ( = I Esdr.
5:46 [47]) there is a statement of time which presupposes a defi
nite date in the preceding narrative. Just after the long list of
returning exiles, and the subjoined statement that the people
arrived in Jerusalem and settled there and in the neighboring
cities, the narrative continues: "And when the seventh month
was come," etc. In our canonical Ezra there is no preceding
date, to which this can be referred. The date in 1:1, "The first
year of Cyrus, King of Persia," is not to be thought of, both because
it is too indefinite and because the time would be far too short.
And the Chronicler is particular about such matters as these ; see,
for example, Ezra_7:8, 9, and 8:31. But in the First Esdras
recension, just before this list of returning exiles, we find the
missing date, in 5:6 (the verse which has already been discussed;
see above).

First Esdras, then contains a portion of the Chronicler's history
which has been lost from our canonical book of Ezra. The original
narrative passed directly on from 2:14 ( = Ezra 1:11) to 4:47,
which began thus: " [And Cyrus the king] wrote letters for him
(i. e., for Sheshbazzar) unto all the administrators and governors,"
etc. Then, after the section 4:47-56, there followed immedi
ately 4 : 62—5 : 6, and then 5 : 7 ff . ( = Ezra 2 : 1 ff . ) . There is no
reason to doubt that the history, as thus restored, is complete and
in the very same form which its author gave it.

The interpolator, for his part, wrote 4:43-46, and the first
clause of vs. 47 (altering the original slightly here), and vss.
57-61. He also changed "Cyrus" to "Darius" in 5:2 and 5:6,
and inserted a gloss in the latter verse.12 Whether the gloss in
4:13 is from him, or from a previous hand, may be questioned.
It was he, finally, who transposed the Artaxerxes correspondence,
Ezra 4:6-24, to the place where it now stands in First Esdras.

12 The " Joachim " of this verse came from a misread Dp*1"! •> as I have shown elsewhere.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 29

It is an interesting question, at what point the Aramaic text
ended, and the Hebrew text began, in the composite narrative.
It is, of course, certain that the Chronicler himself wrote all of
this portion of his history in Hebrew (or what may be allowed to
pass for Hebrew) ; and it is hardly less certain that the interpo
lator was as well acquainted with the one language as with the
other. No one will question that the verses 4:43—46, at least,
were written in Aramaic ;13 and it may also be taken for granted
that the passage 5:1-6 was allowed to stand in its original
Hebrew. But in regard to the intermediate portion, 4:47—63,
there is room for doubt, since it is conceivable that the interpola
tor should have written vss. 57-61 in Aramaic, and then have
translated the Chronicler's Hebrew up to and just beyond
that point, in order to conceal from sight the real place of the
juncture. It is improbable, however, that he would have made
himself this unnecessary labor. So far as we can judge, from the
very few Jewish productions of this period that have survived, the
combination of Hebrew and Aramaic in the same document was
a common thing. It was possible, for instance, for the Chronicler
to compose Ezra 6: 16-18 in Aramaic, and then continue the same
narrative in Hebrew in vss. 19 ff. — although he could not have
had any reason for wishing to deceive his readers as to where the
preceding document ended. Similarly, in Dan. 2:4 we see the
change from the one language to the other taking place in the
middle of a sentence, the narrative then going on as though
nothing had happened. Obviously, such abrupt changes as these
were not felt to be disturbing. So far as the Greek of this part
of First Esdras is concerned, the last sure sign of an Aramaic
original is the ro're of vs. 47. Beyond this point, the language
seems to me everywhere to suggest Hebrew rather than Aramaic,
though I have not been able to find any decisive proof. I there
fore believe that the interpolator's Aramaic continued as far as the
first words of the Chronicler's narrative, and that everything after
this was Hebrew, including vss. 57-61. That is, vs. 47 began

13 Aside from the strong probability that this added patch would be written in the same
language as the preceding narrative, we have the evidence of rare in vs. 43, the position of
the infinitive etcire^ai in vs. 44, and the icvpie j3a<7iAeu (apparently fcOb'Q "^"TQ » as in Dan.
4:21) in vs. 46. The last-named verse, by the way, contains an evident mistranslation, the
conjunction 1 being rendered by KOU, instead of by some word meaning, " since," " inasmuch
as." The Aramaic was: '•jrfib *TQ ("H) Xfl^QI S"1!! XT!) "since such munificence is
thine." ^tYD"! used here exactly like flbTO in II Sam. 7/21, I Chron. 17:19, where also
the Greek rendered by /aeyr ^uo-uVrj.

30 EZRA STUDIES

in Aramaic: "Then Darius the king arose, and kissed him;" and
it was continued in Hebrew: "And he wrote letters for him unto
all the administrators and governors," etc.

The result of this investigation has been, to restore a lost
half-chapter to our "canonical" Old Testament — a thing which
has never been done before, and presumably will never be done
again— and to give the Story of the Three Youths its true place
as an important specimen of old Aramaic literature. I hope to
throw further light on the origin of this Story in a subsequent
chapter.

IV. THE ORIGIN OF OUR TWO RECENSIONS

The Chronicler, probably not far from the middle of the third
century B. c., but possibly later, wrote his Levitical History of
Israel. Its contents, in their original order, were as follows:
I and II Chronicles; Ezr. 1; I Esdr. 4:47-66; 4:62—5:6;
Ezr. 2:1—8:36; Neh. 7:70—8:18; Ezr. 9:1—10:44; Neh.
9:1—10:40; Neh. 1:1—7:69; 11:1—13:31.

At the beginning of the last century B. c. this history was
current only in a form which differed from the original form in
two important particulars: (1) Three chapters originally belonging
to the story of Ezra had been accidentally transposed, by a natural
mistake,14 into the book of Nehemiah. (2) The Aramaic Story of
the Three Youths had been interpolated. The interpolator added
a few harmonistic verses at the end of the Story, and also trans
posed the passage Ezra 4:6-24 to a place just before it.

Somewhat later, still another alteration found its way into
numerous copies of the work. The fact that the account of
the reading of the Law (Neh. 7:73 — 8:18), and that of the
sealing of the covenant (Neh. 9:1 — 10:40), had originally
belonged to the story of Ezra was not lost sight of among
the Jews. Accordingly, someone, at some time in the last
century B. c., made an attempt to restore the history to its true
form by transposing these chapters to the place from which
they were supposed to have come. That is, they were simply
appended to the story of Ezra, being made to follow Ezra
10. It must be noted, however, that not all of the matter
which had originally belonged to the story of Ezra was restored
at this time. The three verses Neh. 7:70-72 were so securely
lodged in their new surroundings (owing to the same considera-

i*See my Composition of Ezr. -Neh., p. 34.

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS ' 31

tions which had caused their transfer thither) that they were no
longer movable. The re-transferred section accordingly began
with 7:73.

The result was (as we have the best of evidence) that two
editions of the Chronicler's book, with its interpolated Story of
the Youths, were current at the beginning of the Christian era.
The two differed only at one point, namely, the section Neh. 7:73
—10:40, containing the story of the Reading of the Law and
the account of the Sealing of the Covenant. In the one edition
(call it A) the position of this section was the same as in our
massoretic Hebrew Bible; in the other edition (call it B) it had
been appended to the Book of Ezra, of which it formed the close,
Ezra 10:44 being continued by Neh. 7:73; and in neither
edition were the two narratives which constitute this section in
their original and proper context ! To describe the two editions
a little more fully:

A = I and II Chron. ; history from Cyrus to the com
pletion of the temple as in I Esdr. ; stories of Ezra
and Nehemiah as in our Hebrew Bible.

B = I and II Chron. ; history from Cyrus to the com
pletion of the temple as in I Esdr.; story of Ezra
concluding with Neh. 7:73 — 10:40; story of Nehe
miah as in our Hebrew Bible minus the section
just mentioned.

One point in the description of Edition B requires special
proof here, namely, the statement that not only Neh. 8, but
also chaps. 9 and 10, were retransposed to the end of Ezra.
That chap. 8 was thus transferred we know, of course, from First
Esdras. Our only surviving text, however, breaks off at the
beginning of vs. 13, in this chapter; so for an answer to the
question, What came next ? we must turn to other evidence. This
is of two kinds:

1. General probability. — Chaps. 9 and 10 had long been
connected with chap. 8, and must have been felt to be of one
piece with it. Whoever had acumen enough to see that chap. 8
was out of place in the Book of Nehemiah must also have seen
(as readers of the book in all ages have seen) that chaps. 9 and
10 belonged with equal certainty to the story of Ezra. The
testimony of such verses as 9:1-3, 4f. (cf. 8:4, 7); 10:28(1), 29,

32 EZRA STUDIES

30, could not be misunderstood.15 And with chap. 8 removed,
the incongruity of chaps. 9 and 10 with their surroundings would
be very much more obvious. Imagine 9 : 1 following directly
upon 7:72!

2. The evidence from Josephus. — Josephus, who is the earliest
writer (of those known to us) to excerpt the Chronicler's history,
used Edition B. As his method is to give only such extracts as
suit his purpose, and he frequently vaults over whole chapters and
gives to others only a sentence or a clause, it is not always easy
to follow him. The two chapters, Neh. 9 and 10, obviously con
tain hardly anything that he could use for his history; and, in
fact, he makes no use of them at all, unless we find them alluded
to in certain phrases at the end of his abridgment of Neh. 8.
In telling the story of Ezra, when he comes to the account of
the reading of the law he gives in concise form the contents of
Neh. 8, to the very end of the chapter (Antt., xi, 154-57). In
finishing the account, he says that Ezra urged the people not to
mourn, saying that it would be better for them at that time to
keep the feast with joy, /cal rrjv fjierdvoiav /cal XVTTTJV rrjv errl TO£?
€fJL7rpoo-0ev e^rj/jLapTrjijievois a(T$>d\eidv re e%eiv /cal ^>v\a/crjv rov fJirjSev
ofjioiov avfjLTreo-elv. And he then adds, that after the people had
kept the feast for the eight days, ave^^aav et? ra ol/cela /xera
V/JLVCDV rov Oeov (cf. Neh. 9:5?) rrjs erravopduKrew rwv irepl rb rro\i-
rev/jia rrapavo^Oevrwv "Effyxz X^PLV et'Sore?. Either one or both
of these passages may well have been suggested by Neh. 9 and
10; but more than this can hardly be said. Josephus then
passes on to the story of Nehemiah, which he gives in greatly
abridged form. After narrating how the building of the wall
was finished, he proceeds (xi, 180 f.): ra pev ovv eBvrj ra ev ry
^vpia .... eSvacfrdpei, (=Neh. 6:16 — end). Nee/ua? Se rrjv
rro\iv op&v o\,iyav@pa)7rovfJLevrjv (=Neh. 7:4, teal 6 Xao? 0X4705 ev
aur^)rou? lepels re /cal Aemra? Trape/cdXecrev rrjv %cbpav eK\irr6vras
pere\6elv eis rrjv iro\iv /cal peveiv ev avrfj- (Neh. 11:1, 10-23;
12:1-26) .... rov re yewpyovvra \aov ra? Se/eara? r&v KaprrSyv
e/ce\evcre <f>epeiv et? 'lepoa-o'Xvfta, iva rpe<f)eo-0ai, Sirjvetcws e^oi/re? ol
lepefc /cal Aevlrai pr) /caraXeiTrcoai, rrjv Oprja/cei'av (Neh. 12:44;
13:10-12).

It can hardly be doubted, in view of all this — and with nothing
to point to the contrary conclusion — that the two chapters, Neh.
9 and 10, stood at the end of the book of Ezra in the B edition.

15 To say nothing of the »cai el™ 'E£8pas with which 9:6 begins in the Greek version !

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS 33

Both editions, A and B, must have continued in use for a con
siderable time. The extent to which Edition B was used may be
judged from the fact that it was the one from which the old
Greek version was made, as well as the one used by Josephus
in writing his history of the Jews;16 while for a witness to the
prestige of Edition A we have the fact that it was ultimately
taken as the basis of the recension which alone was adopted for
the "official" Hebrew Bible.

It deserves especially to be emphasized that the Story of the
Three Youths was present in both of the current forms of the
history. At the beginning of the Christian era, there
was probably no version of the Chronicler's book in
existence which did not contain this Story. Certain it
is, at any rate, that those who made the recension now repre
sented by our massoretic text knew of no such form already
existing, but were obliged to resort to excision.

The trouble caused in the Jewish world by this Levitical His
tory of Israel, in its two incongruous editions, could be imagined
even if we had no direct proof of it. As time went on, and the
lingering traditional knowledge of the Persian period dwindled
and disappeared, the Chronicler's compilation stood out con
spicuously as the one document dealing with the history of the
Jews in this important time. It seems to have been little used
at first, and when at last it became generally known it was looked
upon with suspicion (witness its position in the Jewish canon,
and its rejection from the Syriac Bible, to say nothing of other
indications), but its ultimate recognition was inevitable. The
final test came, of course, when the idea of a definite "canon"
of divinely inspired scripture was first developed; namely, about
the beginning of the second century A. D. The Jewish rabbis
were obliged to meet squarely the question whether they should
accept this book or reject it. On the one hand, it was the source,
and the indispensable support, of certain theories which had come
to be implicitly believed and cherished, especially in ecclesiastical
circles ; but, on the other hand, it was obviously an untrustworthy
guide. Anyone could see that the Story of the Three Youths
was incongruous with its surroundings, and it needed no unusual
acumen to see that it was in fact an interpolation. Such naive
attempts to cut the knot as that of Josephus, who substitutes

16 And Josephus, as we know, was a writer who would have been careful to employ the
orthodox recension.

34 EZRA STUDIES

"Cambyses" for the Artaxerxes of I Esdr. 2:15 ff., could only do
more harm than good. And the case with the history of the two
great leaders, Ezra and Nehemiah, was no better, for two versions,
incompatible with each other, were in circulation. The situation
was an intolerable one, and could be ended only in one way,
namely, by a new recension.

A final revision was accordingly made, and was officially
adopted. The Story of the Youths was cut out bodily from the
book, and care was taken that it should never again appear in the
Jewish sacred writings. But unfortunately, in the excision of the
Story, a part of the Chroniclers original narrative was. cut out
with it. The cause of this accident is easy to see. The expanded
Story, as edited by the interpolator, did not end with I Esdr.
4:63, but extended through the first six verses of chap. 5. The
interpolation in vs. 6, supported by the occurrence of the name
"Darius" both here and in vs. 2, left the revisers no alternative;
the knife must cut between vss. 6 and 7. Upon the excision of
the Story followed necessarily the restoration of the Artaxerxes
correspondence to its proper place.

The choice between the two versions of the Ezra-Nehemiah
story must have caused more difficulty. What led the Jewish
revisers here to follow Edition A rather than Edition B can only
be a matter of conjecture. Possibly some external evidence show
ing that the order of chapters in the former was older than that
in the latter was still in existence. But it is perhaps more likely
that what decided the matter was the presence, through
interpolation, of Nehemiah's name in the three doubtful
chapters (see Neh. 8:9 and 10:1, and compare the date in 1:1),
an interpolation which easily (and almost inevitably) took place
after these chapters had been accidentally transposed into the
story of Nehemiah.

So much for the origin of our canonical Ezra. As for our
First Esdras, it is, as has already been said, the one surviving
fragment of the old Greek version of the Chronicler's history, a
version which was simply a faithful rendering of Edition B, and
was probably made in the latter part of the last century B. c.
The accompanying diagram will serve to illustrate the history of
the two recensions.

The extent of our First Esdras, it is hardly necessary to add,
is due simply to accident. Probably all the manuscripts, Semitic

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF FIRST ESDRAS

Chronicler's History. Hebrew- Aramaic.
(250 B. o., or later)

Two long passages transposed from Ezra to Nehemiah; the

first by accident, the second as a necessary result

(Neh. 7:70—8:18 and 9:1—10:40)

Story of the Three Youths

(lEsdr. 3:1— 4:42).

Aramaic

(Redactional expansions [I Esdr. 4:43-47a; 57-61] and
alterations. Transposition of Ezra 4:6-24)

Edition A

Excision of the Story; together with
a part of the original history,
lEsdr. 4:476-56; 4:62— 5:6.

(Beginning of second century A. D.)

Canonical Ezra-Nehemiah

Edition B (Neh. 7:73—10:40 trans
posed to end of Ezra)

Greek translation (before middle
of second century B. o.)

First Esdras

36 EZRA STUDIES

or Greek, which contained any other version than the official one
were systematically destroyed. Just as the old Greek version of
Daniel narrowly escaped the fate which befell its Semitic original,
being saved only in a single Greek codex and a secondary version,
so this portion of the condemned Esdras recension was rescued
by a lucky chance. There was only one such fragment, and all
of our "I Esdras" texts and translations go back to it. It prob
ably consisted of a few quires plucked out of the middle of a
codex. The first page of the rescued fragment began with
II Chron. 35:1; and the last words on the last page were KOI
e7n(Tvvri'%6ri(TaV) which in this version had been the first words of
Neh. 8:13.

And it is certain, finally, that the manuscript from which this
piece survived was Greek, not Semitic. There never existed a
Hebrew- Aramaic fragment of the same extent as our First Esdras.
Conclusive proof of this statement is found in the closing words,
for in the Hebrew text Neh. 8:13 begins with ^DlBSl DYQ1 , not
with the verb.

Whether accidentally rescued or deliberately excided, it is
evident that this fragment was not altered nor edited in any way
by those who first preserved it by itself. No attempt was made
to give it a suitable beginning, nor even to complete the obviously
unfinished sentence with which it ends.17 In every library of
ancient manuscripts there are to be found similar fragments, con
sisting generally of a few quires surviving from codices of which
the remainder has been lost;18 fragments almost always through
accident, but sometimes also through selection. In the sense in
which any one of these might be called a "book," First Esdras
may be given that designation, but in no other sense.

17 Except in the Lagarde Greek recension, which here, as in some other places (compare
what was said above regarding the text of 4:39) has been deliberately "revised."

18 Compare, for example, the accidental loss of the first part of the Peshitto version of
Tobit, which has totally disappeared.

Ill

THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS

(IEsdras3:l— 4:42)
I. OBIGIN OF THE STORY

Among the most interesting surviving specimens of old Semi
tic literature must be counted the story of the three young
guardsmen at the court of King Darius, and their contest of wits in
the royal audience hall. As has already been shown (see above,
pp. 18-30), this narrative was originally written in the Aramaic
language, and was interpolated in the Chronicler's history of
Israel by an unknown hand, probably near the beginning of the
second century B. c. The main questions as to its origin, date,
and primitive form, and the class of literature to which it belongs,
remain to be answered. It is now generally believed that this
"story" was a Jewish composition, a "contribution to the legend
ary history of the Captivity and Return" (Swete, Introduction
to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 266) ; and the only remark
which it ordinarily calls forth is the verdict that it "is unhistor-
ical." I shall try to show in the following pages that it was
originally a separate composition, a bit of popular wisdom-litera
ture complete in itself, and in its first estate having nothing to
do with the history of the Jews; that it was composed in Pales
tine, probably soon after 300 B. c. ; that it was incorporated entire
in the Chronicler's history, and has been preserved in what is
substantially its original form.

The interpolator, as I have shown (see pp. 25-27), gave the
story, in the main, as he found it, without attempting to work it
over, or indeed to make any alteration whatever beyond what was
absolutely necessary. The beginning, obviously, was left un
touched. Up to the end of 4:42, moreover, there is not a clause,
nor even a word, that seems to be secondary or editorial, excepting
of course the manifest gloss in 4:13. It was only at the end,
where the story required to be adapted to a definite place in Jewish
history, that redactional patches were necessary, and were made.
The interpolator himself did this harmonistic work; and one

38 EZRA STUDIES

necessary feature of it was the occasional change of the name
"Cyrus," in the immediately following portion of the Chronicler's
history, to "Darius" (above, pp. 27 f.). The presence of the
name "Darius," in fact, was an indispensable condition of the in
sertion of the story, Zerubbabel being the hero. The question
therefore arises at once, whether the interpolator may not himself
have introduced the name throughout the whole story. We
know with certainty that according to his representation the king
who sent Zerubbabel and his company to Jerusalem was Darius
II Nothus;1 but it is quite another question, whom the author of

1 It is strange that the question of the chronological order of the Persian kings accord
ing to the attested Jewish tradition should have made, and should still be making, so much
trouble among scholars. See for example Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums, p. 14 ; Well-
hausen, Israehtische und jiidische Geschichte^, p. 171, note; Bertholet, E*ra und Nehemia,
p. 13, middle. The simple fact is this, that according to the accepted view of the Jewish
scholars and writers, in the Greek period and still later, a kingdom of the Medes preceded
that of the Persians, and Darius I Hystaspis was the monarch of this Median king
dom. Aside from this one important error, the Jewish writers made no mistake in regard
to the Persian kings, but everywhere preserved the true order.

As for the kingdom of the Medes, it is the one briefly referred to in Dan. 2:39 and 7:5,
as scholars are generally agreed. Neither the author (or authors) of Daniel nor any of the
other Jewish writers shows any interest in this Median power or its history. The duration
of its rule over Babylonia was believed to have been very brief ; to have included, in fact,
the reign of only one king. We read in Dan. 5:30, 6:1, that upon the death of the last Baby
lonian king, Belshazzar, his kingdom was taken by Darius "'the Mede;" and we are told with
equal distinctness in 6 : 29, cf . 9 : 1, 10 : 1, 11 : 1, that this Darius was immediately succeeded by
Cyrus, the first king of the Persians. (I do not believe that the original text of Dan. 9:1
called this Darius the "son of A h a s u e r u s." The name lDl*W2Jnfc5 *s ^ue ^° some copyist,
who substituted a well-known name for the unknown, and probably corrupt, form which lay
before him. In Josephus, the name is "Astyages" — cf. Theodotion's Bel and the Dragon,
vs. 1 (original reading possibly " Darius, son of Astyages "?). One might perhaps conjecture
"Cyaxares" (HuwahSatara), for this blunder would at least have involved no anachro
nism. Cyaxares flourished about 600 B.C., and this Darius came to the throne "about sixty-two
years of age" (Dan. 6 : 1). But perhaps we need not take the writer's chronology so seriously.
I suppose it is possible that the author, or authors, of these chapters had never heard the
name of Hystaspes.) That is, in the Jewish tradition represented by the author of Daniel
(who was a man of some learning), Darius I Hystaspis was put immediately before Cyrus
instead of immediately after him. The author of Daniel would have begun his list of
Persian kings thus : Cyrus, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I Longimanus, Darius II Nothus, etc.

The Chronicler's history of Israel represents precisely the same view of the royal suc
cession, and, accordingly, of a brief Median rule preceding the Persian. It is perfectly
plain from Ezra 4:1-7 that his list of the Persian kings began in the same way as did that of
the author of Daniel. The Chronicler makes no mention of Darius Hystaspis, "The Mede,"
before Cyrus, for the same reason that he fails further on to include Artaxerxes III Ochus,
namely, because these kings (as he supposed) had nothing to do with the history of the Jews.
But aside from this one transposition of Cyrus and Darius— the same which is made in
Daniel— his succession of Persian kings, as given in Ezr.-Neh., is the correct one. According
to his view, Zerubbabel and his companions finished the temple under Darius Nothus ; and
the Artaxerxes who befriended Ezra and (afterward) Nehemiah was Artaxerxes Mnemon.

Again, the Chronicler's Aramaic source represents the selfsame historical tradition.
The author of this story of the building of the temple of course makes no mention of the
Median king who preceded Cyrus, nor does he have occasion to mention Xerxes; but he
leaves us in no doubt as to the fact that, in his belief, the temple was finished in the time of
the Darius whose reign followed that of Artaxerxes I.

The textual tradition, it should be observed, perpetuates this view of the two kings
named Artaxerxes. The name of the enemy of the Jews, who is mentioned in Ezra 4, is in
variably written with t[J ; the name of the friend of the Jews, mentioned in Ezra 7 f. and

THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 39

the Story of the Youths intended by his "Darius," or indeed,
whether he used this name at all. What, then, is the historical
setting of the story, and who is the "king" at whose palace the
scene is laid?

It is, of course, beyond question that the story was originally
told of a king, not of a satrap, governor, or other high official.
It is almost equally certain that the scene was laid in Persia.
From the beginning of the story to its end, the Persian kingdom
and its capital are plainly in the thought of the writer. The
allusions are too many and too deeply imbedded in the structure
of the story to be regarded merely as the result of an editorial
revision (see, for example, 3:1, 2, 9, 14). We must conclude
that when the story was originally composed the narrator intended
to describe a scene at the court of one of the Achaemenids.
Observe also how the interpolator takes it for granted that the
event described took place in the Persian capital. If he were
giving the tale a new setting, he would certainly be explicit as to
the name of the city; but as it is, he plainly assumes that every
reader would know that Susa was intended. Thus, in 4:57: "And
he (Darius) sent away all the vessels which Cyrus had brought2
from Babylon (i. e., to Susa)'," and again, in verse 61: "So he
(the youth) took the letters, and came forth (from Susa) to
Babylon."

If no other evidence were to be had, it would still remain
doubtful whether the name "Darius" is also original, or whether
it is to be ascribed to a later hand. But fortunately, we have the
evidence which is needed. Thanks to that most important verse,
4:29, we are able to determine which king is intended, and the

Neh. 2, is invariably written with Q. The Darius who came between these two kings was of
course Darius Nothus.

And finally, the interpolator of the Story of the Youths shared the view of the Chroni
cler, the author of Daniel, and the textual tradition of Ezr.-Neh. The fact that he trans
posed the account of the correspondence in the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, Ezr. 4:6-24,
to the place which it occupies in I Esdr. is conclusive evidence of this. Like the other Jew
ish writers of his time, he believed that the Darius under whom Zerubbabel finished the
building of the temple was Darius Notnus; and, according to him, it was at or very near
the beginning of the reign of this same king that the three youths held their contest at the
Persian court. According to his version of the history, Zerubbabel was still a youth at the
time of the completion of the temple; while according to the Chronicler's version he was an
old man at that time (though in all probability the Chronicler supposed the reigns of Xerxes
and Artaxerxes I to have been brief ones).

It is true that our modern historians may reasonably be in doubt as to the date
of the completion of the temple; but it does not seem to me that there is justification for
doubt, in the face of this evidence, as to what view the old Jewish narrators held.

2 The Greek translator's exupurev is probably a mistaken rendering, both here and in
verse 44 ; see the notes.

40 EZRA STUDIES

approximate date of the story. According to the text ordinarily
used, the passage reads thus:3

/ saw Apama the daughter of Bartakes, . ... the concubine of
the king, sitting at the king's right hand ; I saw her snatch the crown
from his head, and place it upon her own; with her left hand she
slapped the king. In spite of all this, the king gazed upon her with
open mouth.

It is obvious that we have here the key to the date and original
home of the story. The proper name Apama, at least, has been
correctly transmitted. It is a very well-known name, and yet not
one that would have been chosen at random or taken as typical.
The writer of the story had a real personage in mind at this point.
The fact that the name of the girl's father is appended adds to the
certainty of this conclusion, though the latter name is so badly
mutilated as to seem almost hopeless.

Among all the women named Apama who are known to us,
there are only two who need to be taken into account. The prime
requisite is that the girl should have been a concubine, or at least
a favorite,4 of one of the Persian kings. The two who most nearly
meet the requirements are (1) Apama, the daughter of the satrap
Artabazos III, who was the son of the satrap Pharnabazos II;
and (2) Apama, the daughter of the Bactrian satrap Spitamenes,
or Pithamenes. These two Apamas were the most celebrated of
all who bore the name, and both made their first appearance in
history at the court of the Persian king. The king, moreover,
was Darius III Codomannus, and this fact is another cor
roborating element. The coincidence is too far-reaching to be
an accident; the natural conclusion is that the king originally
intended in this story was Darius III. All that we know of the
two Apamas, during their early life in Persia, is contained in the
well-known story of the great feast at Susa, given by Alexander
to his generals after the conquest of Persia. At this feast, accord
ing to the historians, Alexander gave to the foremost of his gen
erals wives from the Persian court. Apama, daughter of Spita
menes (or, as some authorities have, Pithamenes), was given to
Seleucus Mcator, the first of the Syrian line of monarchs ; and
Apama, daughter of Artabazos, was given to Ptolemy Lagi, the
first of the Egyptian kings. Thus Arrian, Anabasis, vii, 4, 6,

3 The Greek text, with its various readings, will be given below and discussed.
* We are left in some uncertainty by the Greek TraAAaKrj here, inasmuch as it is a transla
tion and we cannot be sure what Aramaic word was used in the original.

THE STORY or THE THREE YOUTHS 41

narrating the distribution of wives: ^eXevKw Se
TOV ~BarcTpiov TralBa. In speaking (ibid.) of the wife given to
Ptolemy Lagi, he calls her the daughter of Artabazos, but uses
the native name 'Apra/capa.5 Plutarch, Eumenes, §1, gives the
name correctly (TlroXe/JLaiO) fjiev ^Aird^av) , and says that Artabazos
was her father. Strabo, Geographica, xii, 8, 15, confuses the two
Apamas, saying that Apama, the daughter of Artabazos was given
in marriage to Seleucus Nicator.6 The statement regarding Seleu-
cus and his wife which is given by John Malalas, Chronographia,
viii (Migne, Vol. XCVII, col. 312), is perhaps worth quoting:

o 8e avrbs Se'Xeu/co? 6 Nifcdrcop eA,a/3e yvvalfca ev ra> 7roXe)u&> ajro
Hdp0o)v ovdfjLaTi 'ATrd/Aav irapOevov rjVTiva ejrijpev ave\GDV TOV Trarepa
Hi0afjievr)v, ovra arparTyyov TldpOaiv /jueyav. 'A<£' 779 'ATra/xa?
6 avrbs 2eXeu/co9 Ovyarepas Suo, ' A7rd/j,av KOI AaoS&crjV.

There is nothing in our extra-biblical sources to indicate that
either the daughter of Artabazos or the- daughter of Spitamenes
had been, or was supposed to have been, a concubine of Darius
Codomannus. This, however, is a fact of no importance. In
I Esdr. 4 : 29 we are dealing, in any case, with a popular tale, the
original purpose of which we have no means of knowing. Court
gossip and the story-tellers of the common people alike love to
play with such details as these, and to invent them, with or with
out malice prepense, especially when the early life of the royal
personage was (as in this instance) a romantic one, and had been
lived in a foreign land. And Alexander might well have been
represented as finding extraordinary treasures in the harem of
Darius. It may be that the author of the Story of the Youths
himself added this touch of local interest to the scene he was
painting, representing the celebrated queen of his land as having
been, in her girlhood, a favorite of the great Persian king. Be
that as it may, we need waste no more thought on the 7ra\\atcr) of
I Esdras than we do on the irapdevos of Malalas, in the passage
above quoted. Beyond question, the evidence within reach points
to the general conclusions already stated: (1) the "Darius"
of our story is, in any case, Darius III; (2) for the
heroine of the verse 4:29, we must look either to
Egypt or to Antioch.

5 See Wilcken, in Pauly's Real-Encyclopadie, 8. v. "Apama."

fi NOldeke, GMt. Gel. Anzeigen, 1884, p. 295, accepted the statement of Strabo, and was
followed in this by Marquart, Fundamenta israelit. undjttd. Geschichte, pp. 65 f. But the
evidence inclines decidedly the other way (so also Wilcken, in Pauly, loc. cit.).

42 EZEA STUDIES

It is not altogether easy to decide between the two Apamas;
fortunately, the decision at this point need not greatly affect our
conclusion as to the original home of the story. If the daughter
of Artabazos and wife of Ptolemy is meant, then it is pretty cer
tain that the tale was composed either in Egypt or in Palestine,
somewhere near 300 B. c. ; for such an allusion to the foreign-born
queen could only have been made during her lifetime or a short
time after her death. If the other Apama, the daughter of Spita-
menes and wife of Seleucus, was intended, the natural conclusion
would be that the story was written in Syria, and perhaps most
likely in northern Syria, at about the same date. Of local "color," or
allusion, to connect the narrative with either of the two kingdoms,
there is not a particle. All the setting is distinctly Persian,
as has already been remarked, and the Persian capital is the only
scene which the story suggests.7 As for the use of the Aramaic
language, we know that it was the reigning tongue at this time,
from the borders of Persia to the Mediterranean, and that it was
also used to some extent in Egypt, where the Semitic element of the
population was considerable. Still, a document of this sort,
composed in Egypt at the beginning of the third century B. c.,
would probably have been composed in Greek ; in Syria or Pales
tine, on the contrary, Aramaic would have been the natural vehicle.
So far as general probability is concerned, then, the matter stands
thus: if our "Apama" is the Egyptian queen, then the story is
most likely to have been written in Palestine; if the wife of
Seleucus is intended, then it probably originated somewhere in
central or northern Syria.

The main hope of reaching a satisfactory decision lies in the
names which are given in 4:29. These, as has already been
remarked, are presumably corrupt in the forms which have reached
us. Foreign proper names in a Semitic text are easily and rapidly
changed. The transliteration into Greek is apt to involve some
additional loss, and the corruption is increased still further by
copyists, especially when, as in this case, the original is no longer
to be had for reference. All our texts and versions of I Esdras
are derived as was shown above (p. 36), from the fragment of a
single faulty Greek codex. It is only necessary to recollect the
-large number of almost incredibly, distorted proper names else-

7 Marquart, op. cit., p. 66, attempts to show that the palace in Antioch was the original
scene, but fails conspicuously at every point.

THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS

where in this book, in order to see what we must be prepared to
find here. And, in fact, our traditional texts of 4: 29 do not con
tain any form closely resembling either Artabazos or Spitamenes.
In the ordinary text of the Egyptian recension, represented by
the uncials A, B, and their fellows, the Syro-Hexaplar version,
the Ethiopic, and other less important witnesses, the girl Apama
is called the daughter of "Bartakes" (rrjv BvjaTepa Ba/ora/cou).
We seem to have conclusive evidence, however, that this was not
the reading of the primal Greek fragment out of which "First
Esdras" grew. In the Syro-Palestinian recension, found in
the Lagarde text ' and the Latin, we read Ba &KOV, or Befa/eou,
Lat. Bezacis; and as this reading is confirmed by the wit
ness of Josephus, Antt. xi, 3, 5, TOV {3a(n\ea .... elSdv Trore
VTTO -n}? 'Pa/Be^dicov TOU f&ejjbacriov vratSo? 'ATrayn?;? .... pcnri-
^opevov, we must accept it as the original reading of our I Esdras
fragment. For, ( 1 ) it is certain that all our I Esdras texts were
derived from the one fragment ; (2) Josephus, though he followed
a Greek text in Ezr.-Neh., as elsewhere, did not have before him
the mutilated scrap, "I Esdras," but a complete translation of the
Chronicler's book; and (3) it is certain that no I Esdras text was
influenced here by Josephus. The Syrian text of 4: 29 is thus the
original, so far as I Esdras is concerned, reading as follows:

eOecbpovv avrbv Kal ' ATrd/jLrjv rrjv 0vyarepa Tla^a/cov TOV OavfJLaa-
7ra\\aKr)v TOV /3aoYXea)?, tca0r] jjiev^v e/c Sefttwz/ TOV (Bacn-

fCT€.

From the form of the name given here, the other forms were
derived, through the usual accidents of transmission. In the
copying of cursive manuscripts the spelling BapTatcov arose, prob
ably through an intermediate BaTaicov . The prefixed syllable in
the reading of Josephus, Pa(3e£aicov* is merely the result of a very
ordinary copyist's error, having its origin in the [6vyaTe]pa/3e%aKov
of the Greek text which was Josephus' only source.9

3 A good deal of ingenuity has been wasted on these names. Fritzsche says of the form
Rabezakes in Josephus, "das ware nplTQ*V' Ball, in the Variorum Apocrypha^ cites the
Syriac, "Aphuma, daughter of .... rabba Artak," and remarks that the Greek Bartak-es
may be a corruption of the latter. Marquart, Fundamente israelit. u. jiid. Geschichte,
pp. 65 f., soems to me to heap one improbability upon another in the attempt to explain the
names in the verse. Regarding the Syriac "Artak," see below.

9 Notice that a blunder of exactly the same nature had found a place in the Greek text,
belonging to the other (Egyptian) recension, which was translated by Paul of Telia. [0vya-
Te]pa0apTaKou resulted in Pa/Sapra/cov, which the Syr.-Hex. reproduces by . n ^;j )_£$ . Iu
view of all the proper names and titles beginning with Rab-, it is no wonder that this
mistake should have been made in more than one place.

44 EZRA STUDIES

We are certainly justified, under the circumstances, in connect
ing Bafa/e- with 'A/?Ta/3afo?, as e. g., Marquart (loc. cit.) has
done. If we can suppose the original form of the name to have
been Artabdzak (Marquart), the problem is at once made easy,
for the hypothesis of a very ordinary sort of haplography in the
original Aramaic text, by which pT2[m&$] tVQ, "the daughter
of Artabazos," became p"Q rPH , rrjv Ovyarepa Bafa/eof, is all
that is necessary.

But there is still another point at which the text of this verse in
I Esdras is unsatisfactory. The rov dav^acrrov must conceal a
proper name, for the adjective would be altogether out of place
either in Aramaic or in Greek. If a name originally stood here,
it was presumably that of the grandfather of Apama; and in the
text of Josephus we do, indeed, have such a name, TOV ®e/-iacn,W.
It is true that this does not appear to be a very desirable acquisi
tion, inasmuch as it has seemed probable, since the researches of
Noldeke, that the father of Artabazos III was the satrap Pharna-
bazos II; still, it is not hard to believe that the narrator of
this tale could have been mistaken in such a particular; and as
©a/zaVto? occurs in Herodotus (vii, 194) as a Persian name,
and this is the very form from which the other readings (©e/>tacrio?,
#af/Ltaa-£o?, Oavfjiaaro^) are most easily derived, we shall probably
do well to retain it.

The conclusion is, that the heroine of I Esdr. 4 : 29 was Apama,
the daughter of Artabazos ("son of Thamasios" ?), and that the
Story of the Youths was written probably while she was still
living as queen of Egypt and Palestine, but possibly in the next
following generation. The home of the story was Palestine,
where the connection with Egypt was then very close, and where
the Aramaic language was commonly employed, as we know, for
compositions of this nature. Other minor indications, of very
little weight in themselves, seem to me to point in the same direc
tion: the freedom with which the writer uses the queen's name;
his uncertainty (?) as to the name of her grandfather; and the
fact that the first appearance of the story of which we have knowl
edge was in Judea. At the time when it was inserted in the
Chronicler's narrative of the Jews (probably in the early part of
the second century B. c.), Palestine was no longer under Egyptian
rule, and queen Apama and her history were already forgotten.

It has already been observed (above, pp. 25 f . ) that the original

THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS

and unexpended Story of the Youths does not extend beyond 4:42
in our book. It is complete as we have it; even at the end it does
not appear that anything is missing; on this point see further
below. There is no likelihood that it formed a part of a larger
work; as it stands, it is a carefully planned and executed whole,
and quite sufficient unto itself. Much might be written as to its
literary character and qualities, for it is an admirable composition,
but here there is space only for a few general observations.

The scene of the story is laid in Susa, shortly before the advent
of Alexander, and it thus belongs to the great group of legends
which attached themselves to this turning-point in the history of
the East. The description of the king's surpassing power and
glory is that with which we are familiar in the tales belonging to
the "Alexander cycle." The narrators loved to represent the
last Darius as the richest and most glorious of his line. This is
exactly what was done, for example, in Dan. 11:2, a verse which
is valuable as giving us the popular Palestinian view of Darius
Codomannus: "And now I will show thee the truth. Behold,
there will arise yet three kings in Persia, but the fourth will be
far richer than all the others ; and when he has become mighty in
his riches, the Lord of All10 will raise up the kingdom of Yawan"
(i. e., the Seleucid kingdom, in the place of the kingdom of Persia) .

There is nothing to show that the story originated in Jewish
circles. Against a possible Jewish origin speaks the fact that no
mention is made of the Jews or their institutions, from the begin
ning up to 4:42, which is at all events the last verse of the story
in its original form which has reached us.11 Moreover, the religious
element is almost entirely lacking, although the writer's main
theme and the development of his thought were such that we
should have expected him at least to introduce the mention of
God before finishing his hero's discourse on the mightiest and
best of all things. How sorely this lack was felt by the early
translators is evident from the way in which they have introduced
alterations and interpretations in the endeavor to bring in the

10 As I have shown elsewhere, the missing word ^TJ) is to be restored before DTT See
my article, " Yawan and Hellas as designations of the Seleucid Empire," JAOS, XXV, 310 f.

11 The fact that in 4:13 the words "this was Zerubbabel" are secondary is obvious
enough. Moreover, it is a poorly executed gloss, for this one name could not suffice to
identify the man — hence the additions which we find in the Lagarde Greek, the Syro-
Hexaplar version, and other texts. This perhaps makes it more probable that the inter
polator himself inserted the name here; he had no need to be more explicit, since the new
context of the story, and the subsequent gloss in 5:6, would more than suffice for the
identification.

46 EZRA STUDIES

missing religious element (see 4:35, 36, 41, and the notes on these
verses).12 The author may indeed have been a Jew by birth; but
this writing cannot be said to belong, in any true sense, to the
Jewish national or religious literature; and the probability is
strong that it was composed by a gentile. It is worthy of remark
that it contains no allusion to, or quotation from, the Old Testa
ment. The only passage which could be taken as possibly showing
acquaintance with the Hebrew Scriptures is 4:39; but the resem
blance to Deut. 10:17 is not striking, and is probably purely
accidental.

This tale of the youths and their contest belongs to the
popular "Wisdom Literature" of Syria and Palestine,
written in the language and embodying the philosophy and the
rhetoric of the time. There were doubtless many such writings,
and it is by a stroke of rare good fortune that this one has been
preserved to our day. The chief concern of its author, it is plain
to see, is with the three "wise sentences" which were uttered.
He has no personal interest in the "third youth," who gained the
victory, and neither names nor describes him. He does not care
especially for the narrative, but cuts it short at all points. His
interest is in the three discourses, and the story is told solely
for their sake. He does, indeed, give his dialogue a striking his
torical setting, combining the legends of the great king, and his
magnificent court, with a local allusion that must have added
considerably to the interest of his readers. But this is merely his
literary art; for the history in itself he had no concern.

From the literary point of view, the successive discourses of
the three youths are highly interesting. It is evident that the
form in which they are cast is well studied; in their structure
they doubtless follow the approved models of their time and
place. It is a pity that we have not the original Aramaic, so that
we might observe the finer points of style and phraseology. The
Greek, to be sure, is a close translation, and so far as the frame
work of the discourses and the construction of their successive
paragraphs are concerned, we are nearly as well off as we could
be if we were in possession of the original. Neither in the ideas
expressed nor in the garb in which they are clothed is there any
thing that could properly be termed*" hellenistic." There is no

12 It is no wonder that they should have felt that this element must be present, seeing
that the speaker of these immortal words was no other than the great leader Zerubbabel,
the builder of the temple !

THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 47

evidence of the influence of Greek literature or philosophy. In
this fact we may perhaps find some corroboration of the conclu
sion reached above as to the original home of the story; for a
writer of such conspicuous ability as this one, composing a work
of this nature in either Egypt or northern Syria, after the begin
ning of the third century B. c., would probably have given evidence
of his close contact with Greek thought.

One fact of especial interest, in the literary structure of the dis
courses proper, is the use of the line of three beats. Even
under the disguise of the Greek translation, this can be recognized
again and again, all through the composition, from 3: 17 to 4: 40.
Thus, in the speech of the first youth, 3:20:13 lib bljb "U?
KD jiCl MbE ^31 Kb TW . Or in the speech of his successor,
the succession of clauses in 4:7 ff.: T£K fbttp bttp/^b T;2K
iDEb. And again, verses 10 f. : b2K | ±3'J3 K1H H31 D51

bwab nn bs bra Kb "rri*nn yntaD fani 7-211 »niD

Kb mbri | fib-H MVPS*. The third youth begins his
speech by saying (4:14): K'£:K "Dal KDb?J m Kbn K^3j
•pmn*l ; and continues in the following verse : b5*l | K^b/J nib"1 "f 1233
•tin "PM KnaOl | K/^2 ttb'iD *1 W. This is certainly not
accidental; and the conclusion is, that the "standard" line of
three beats, which appears everywhere in the Old Testament, is
not a peculiar property of the Hebrew language or of the Hebrew-
Jewish sacred literature; but was the common poetic form, for
compositions of every class, in Syria and Palestine, whether they
were written in Aramaic or in Hebrew. This same conclusion
had already been rendered probable by some passages in the
Aramaic part of Daniel, to be sure.

In all likelihood, the Story of the Three Youths was popular
in its. own land while it still existed as a separate work. After it
became a part of a religious history, it found its way into other
circles — and at the same time its original character and its true
excellencies were lost to sight. The plainest example of its influ
ence on a subsequent writing is found in the book of Esther.
The literary relationship existing between the two has often been
observed, but the conclusion is generally drawn, that I Esdras,
being an "apocryphal book," must have been the borrower.
Cornill, Einleitung', p. 261, says that I Esdr. 3: 1, 2 is a palpable

13 Of course the following specimens, chosen almost at random, are merely intended to
give a general idea of the form of the original. Other words than those chosen might often
have been used.

48 EZRA STUDIES

imitation ("eine handgreifliche Nachbildung") of Esth. 1:1—3.
But these words must have been written without due considera
tion, for all the indications point just the other way. Imitation
there certainly is. The book of Esther opens with the very same
scene with which the Story of the Youths begins ; a royal feast in
the city of Susa, given to all the officers of the " hundred and
twenty-seven provinces, from India to Ethiopia." Then the feast
is described; but what had been told in our Story simply and
soberly is here so exaggerated as to be merely grotesque. The
festival in I Esdras is an affair of a single day; in Esther, the
principal entertainment lasts one hundred and eighty days. Darius
had feasted certain classes of his retainers, which are named; but
"King Ahasuerus" makes a banquet for every human being in
Susa, and the banquet lasts seven days. It is certainly not diffi
cult to see on which side the borrowing lies.

The question of the literary relationship between I Esdras and
Daniel is less easily settled. There is probably dependence, and
the borrower was in that case certainly Daniel. In Dan. 6:2
we have the "hundred and twenty-seven14 provinces" of Darius'
kingdom; and in the following verse the "three presidents,"
apparently the same who are mentioned in I Esdr. 3:9 as holding
the highest position of authority under the king. The coincident
use of these two items is not likely to be a mere accident;15 the
natural inference is that there was literary dependence (so also
Marquart, op. tit., p. 68). Internal evidence then makes it certain
that the borrowing, if borrowing there was, was by Daniel. The
Darius of Dan. 6: Iff., 29, is "Darius the Mede" who was put
before Cyrus; from him, the Story of the Youths was as remote
as possible. On the other hand, if we suppose that the author
of Dan. 6 intended his king to be the same as the one who is
mentioned in I Esdr. 3, we shall be driven to the conclusion that
the borrowing took place before the Story of the Youths
became incorporated in the Chronicler's history; for
in our I Esdras, the king who befriended Zerubbabel came not
only after Cyrus, but also after Xerxes and Artaxerxes I. This
conclusion makes no difficulty for those who believe — as I myself
have long felt certain — that the first six chapters of Daniel are

i*So the old Greek version, which here, as often elsewhere, has preserved the original
reading.

15Lagarde, as is well known, expressed the opinion (Mittheilungen, IV, p. 358) that the
Story of the Three Youths originally stood in the book of Daniel, following Dan. 6:1. It is
not surprising that he should have made few converts to this view.

THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 49

older than the rest of the book, and it seems to me to be probable,
for every reason.16 It is not a necessary conclusion, however,
for the author of Dan. 6:1 f. may have intended to represent his
Darius as instituting customs which continued down to the time
of the Persian king Darius Nothus.

After the Story became a part of the history of the Jews,
interest was centered more on the three youths themselves than
on the wise sayings which they uttered. As a matter of course,
all three of them were soon believed to have been Jews. Accord
ing to the Neapolitan Synopsis, for example (Lagarde, Septua-
ginta-Studien, II, p. 84), the two comrades of Zerubbabel on this
occasion were Jeshua and Ezra.17 That which led to the preserva
tion of the Greek Esdras fragment was, of course, not any regard
for the true text (those who cared for the text would have been
far more likely to destroy the fragment), or for the true course
of the history ; but solely the personal interest in Zerubbabel and
the picturesque story of his life given in this document. For an
illustration of the early Christian interest in this hero, see the Lucca
old Latin codex (Lagarde, Septuaginta-Studien. II, p. 19, 3ff.).

In the translation which here follows, the Story of the Three
Youths has been separated from the interpolator's additions, and
stands by itself once more, for the first time since 200 B. c. It is
also treated for the first time as a translation from an Aramaic
original, with an attempt to restore, as far as possible, the meaning
of the primitive text. I do not believe that any one, reading the
composition as it stands here, will deny to it a very high place in
the literature of the ancient Semitic world. In translating the
Story and, later on, the additions of the interpolator, I have
followed Swete's text, not only because it is the most convenient,
but also because it represents that recension of whose readings
we are surest here. I have departed from it only in 4:29, for
reasons already given. In a preceding chapter (above, pp. 23 ff.)
I introduced some evidence showing that our Greek is a rendering
of an Aramaic text; many more proofs of the same nature will be
found in the notes appended to my translation.

16 The Story was interpolated in the book of Ezra somewhere near the beginning of the
second century B. c., in all probability. If the old Greek translation of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh.
really lay before Eupolemus, in the middle of that century (see Schttrer, Geschichte des
jiid. Volkes*, III, 311, 352 f.), there can be little doubt that it was the same translation from
which our "I Esdras" fragment was derived.

17 Ezra and Zerubbabel not infrequently appear together in this way. In the Chronicle
of John of Nikiu (ed. Zoten' ;rg, pp. 169, 391) the two are identified.

50 EZRA STUDIES

II. TRANSLATION

(IEsdras3:l— 4:42)

31 King Darius made a great feast for all his retainers ; namely ,a
all the members of his household, all the nobles of Media and
Persia, 2and all the satraps, captains, and governors under his rule,
from India to Ethiopia, in the hundred and twenty-seven provinces.
3 And they ate and drank, and when they were sated they went
away. Darius the king also retired to his bed-chamber and slept.

4 Then stood on the watch b the three young guardsmen who
protected the person of the king. And they said to one another:
5 Let each one of us name a thing which is mightiest;0 and to him
whose sentence shall seem wisest, Darius the king shall give great
gifts and magnificent honors,d 6 namely,6 permission to be clothed
in purple, to drink from gold and to sleep upon gold, (to ride in)
a chariot with a golden bridle, and (to wear) a tiara of fine linen,
and a chain about his neck ; 7 and he shall sit next to Darius
because of his wisdom, and shall be called Darius' kinsman.
8 So they wrote each his own sentence; and having sealed the
writing they put it under the pillow of Darius the king, saying,
9 When the king awakes, the writing shall be given f to him; and
whose sentence is adjudged by the king and the three lords of
Persia to be the wisest, to him shall be awarded the victory, as
prescribed. 10 The first wrote, Wine is mightiest. n The second

aThe 1 (= KO.L 2°) is either explicative (cf. the note on vs. 6) or secondary.
It is sufficiently obvious, even without the comparison of Esther 1:3, that
Trdfftv rots UTT' afrr6v (= probably TVHl^ b^b) does not mean all the inhabitants
of the Persian realm. The enumeration which follows proceeds from the
highest to the lowest of those who were invited. Whether or not the trans
lator here used olKoyev^s as a synonym of avyyev^s, its Aramaic original (very
likely PirPS ^31) certainly meant more than "house-servaw/s" !

bSee the suggestion for emendation of the Aramaic text which was
made in a previous chapter (above, p. 24). Instead of /cat e|u7ri/os tytvero. T6re
ol rpeis veavivKoi .... elirav Kre., a Greek version giving the original mean
ing would have read in some such way as this: Kai ypyyopovvres fjo-av T&TC
ol TpeTs veavtffKoi . . . . ical el-rav /ere. The unusual position of the word 'j'nfcO
(= r6re) was probably the cause of the misunderstanding (or corruption) of
the Aramaic text.

cOr, "Let each one of us frame a sentence, (declaring) what thing is
mightiest." In any case, our Greek is a mistranslation; see above, p. 24.

dThe original probably had here a derivative of H^D .

e Apparently another explicative 1 . Cf. the note on vs. 1.

f Adffovffiv o.irr$ : the favorite idiom in Aramaic, employing the indefinite
third person plural in the place of a passive.

THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 51

wrote, The king is mightiest. 12The third wrote, Women are
mightiest; but Truth is victor over all things.

13 So when the king awoke, they took the writing and gave it
to him, and he read it. u And he sent and summoned all the
nobles of Persia and Media, and the satraps, captains, governors,
and magistrates ;a and when they had seated themselves13 in the
hall of audience the writing was read before them. 15 And they
said,c Call the youths, and they shall expound their sentences.
So they were summoned and came in. 16 And they said to them,
Discourse to us concerning the things which you have written.

Then the first, who had declared the power of wine, proceeded d
to speak as follows: " Sirs, how mighty a thing is wine! It
seduces the wit of all who drink it; 18It makes of one mind the
king and the orphan, the slave and the freeman, the poor and the
rich. 19 It turns every mood into gaiety and glee ; of distress, or
of debt, there is no recollection. 20 It makes all hearts feel rich ;
there is no remembrance of king or satrap ; the discourse is all in
talents. 21 Those who have drunk forget friend and brother, and
erelong swords are drawn ; 22 then, when they wake from the wine,
they remember not what they have done. 23Sirs, is note the wine
mightiest, since it can thus compel? When he had thus spoken,
he ceased.

41 Then the second youth, who had declared the power of the
king, spokef as follows. 2Sirs, are not men mighty, since they
rule the land and the sea, and all that is in them ? 3 But the king
is mightier still, for he is their lord and master; in all that he
commands them they obey him. 4If he orders2 them to war with

a Compare the enumeration of officers in Dan. 3:2, where the first four
titles, in the old Greek translation, are the same and in the same order as here.

b Read tKddi<rav, plural, with the Latin, Syriac, Ethiopia, and the following
context.

cRead elirav, plural, with the Syriac and vs. 16.

dThe use of Tjp^aro in this narrative (also 4:1, 13; cf. further 4:44, where
rfpfcro must be read in place of the first Tjtfgaro) suggests the well-known
Aramaic usage, in which a conventional and often almost meaningless "HID
is prefixed to the narrating verb. See Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 29; J. H.
Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek (1906), I, 15.

e Compare the rhetorical question introduced by X5J1 in Dan. 4:27, where
Theodotion's translation has oi>x, as here.

'Concerning ffpgaro, see the note on 3:16.
for the Aramaic "YQX, "command."

52 EZRA STUDIES

one another, they do it. If he sends them out against the enemy,
they go, and overcome mountains, walls, and towers. 5 They slay,
and are slain, but the king's command they transgress not. If
they conquer, they bring all the booty to him ; and when they make
raids for plunder, whatever they takea is his. 6They also, in turn,
who serve not as soldiers, who go not to war, but cultivate the
soil; as often as they sow, of the harvest they carry to the king;
yea, each constrains his fellow to bring tribute to the king. (7) And
yet he is one man only.b 7 If he orders to slay, they slay ; if to
spare, they spare; if to smite, they smite. 8If he orders to lay
waste, they lay waste ; if to build, they build. 9 If he orders to
cut down, they cut down; if to plant, they plant.0 10A11 his
people and his armies obey him. He, furthermore, reclines; he
eats and drinks, and then sleeps ; " but they keep watch round
about him ; no one may depart to do his own work, nor may any
oppose his will. 12 Sirs, how shall not the king be mightiest,
since he is thus obeyed? And he ceased.

13 Then the third, who had spoken of women, and of truth
(this was Zembbabeld) took upe the word. u Sirs, is not the king

a It is quite possible that #XXa correctly represents the original Aramaic
text; but if this is so, the writer at least expressed himself awkwardly. As
Fritzsche observes, the ancient versions and copyists, as well as modern trans
lators, have been troubled by this clause. It may be that the original con
tained a form derived from the root intf "take, seize," instead of one from
in», "other."

bThis clause, /ecu avrbs efs jjibvos forty, is better joined to the preceding than
to the following verse. So far as the Greek is concerned, it might be connected
either way, though the reading of the Lagarde text seems to join it to the
preceding. Our present verse-division here is due to the influence of the Latin
translation; the other versions are non-committal. Such translations as that
of Guthe, "Er allein ist einzig ! " (following Fritzsche) miss the true meaning.
The Aramaic could not have expressed such an idea in these words. The
original was unquestionably: in 113 fcttni . Compare Josh. 22:20, &OfV1
intf EPtf , where the Greek renders by tcai O&TOS eh (j.6vos. With the phrase as
used here cf. Judith 1:11, where it is said that the rebellious nations did not
fear Nebuchadnezzar, d\V ty tvavriov atr&v ws dvrjp efs.

c These sentences, vss. 7-9, have a decidedly Aramaic sound. This persis
tent omission of conjunctions and conditional particles, after the opening
clause, would be less likely in Hebrew.

d These words were not in the original story, which made no mention of
the Jews. The gloss was added either by the one who interpolated the story
in the Chronicler's history, or by a still earlier hand.

eSee the note on 3:16.

THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 53

great; and are not the sons of men mighty ;a and the wine, is it
not powerful? Who now is it that rules all these, that governs
them, is it not woman? 15 Of woman the king was born; and all
the people who rule the sea and the land (16) were born of women. b
16 They nourished the men who planted the vineyards whence the
wine comes.c 1? It is they who give grace to maiikind,d and with
out them men could not live. 18 If men have gathered gold and
silver, and aught else precious, and see a woman comely in form
and feature,6 19 leaving all this they gape at her, and with open
mouth they gaze upon her; yea, all choose her above gold and
silver and everything precious. 20 A man forsakes his own father,
who brought him up, and his native land, and joins himself to his
wife ; 21 to her he abandons himself/ and remembers not father,
nor mother, nor country. 22 Hence also you may knowg that
women rule you : do you not labor and toil, and then bring all and
give it to women? 23A man takes hish sword, and goes forth to

a Uo\\oL is an obvious mistranslation of "pimn . Cf. vss. 2 and 15; the
meaning "mighty" is absolutely necessary.

b On the relation of the Greek translation to the Aramaic text of these
clauses, see above, p. 24. The original was: Ktt2P bD"l fcCDbtt TVpl "plED

mn pra »2n»m s^n tsbip *n .

cln the Syriac (Hexaplar) version, instead of joci Ij^-* .oJoi _Lo, which
is attested by all the MSS, the reading should be jooi ! j^~ ^oJoi ^-iao? .

dln all probability, the original Aramaic was something like 1*1227 "pDJTl
KlE'tfb STin • The object of the verb was a word which meant "adornment,"
and could be understood in either one of two ways; see also my note
above, p. 24. Our Greek gives us two translations: /cat aCrai iroiov<riv rds
(TToXdj r&v avdp<Ji)ir<i)v side by side with fcal aCrat Troiov<rtv 86£ai> rots avBp&irois. (The
Ij text tries to escape this awkwardness by transposing the o-roXds clause into
vs. 16, where it is obviously out of place.) For the likelihood of such an
ambiguity, cf. such passages as Ps. 29:2, and I Mace. 14:9, tvedfoavro S6£as ical
0-ToXdj TroX^/Aou (where in the original Hebrew feOX = n-oX^uou was a copyist's
mistake for "OX).

'How is it possible to suppose that a Greek author composing these
lines would have perpetrated such an unnatural and unnecessary barbarism as
Ka\7}v T£ ftdei xal T£ xdXXei ? But we expect that sort of thing from a trans
lator.

fThe Greek, ical /xerd TT)S yvifaiK&s d^l^ffi rrjv ^vxfy, plainly represents the
Aramaic mpD3 pHTp HnripX rflbl , lit., et apud mulierem suam se relinquit,
which the translator misunderstood.

use of the Greek Set suggests Aramaic tfl or p"TT or "p^S, but
not any Hebrew idiom.

h In the Syriac, instead of 01,-kj-o (so all the MSS) we must read

54 EZRA STUDIES

raid, and to rob and steal; he sails over seas and rivers,a 2* faces
the lion, and makes his way through the darkness. Then, when
he has stolen, plundered, and robbed, he brings all to his
love. 25A man loves his wife far moreb than father or mother:
26 for women, many have parted from their wits; for them they
have been made slaves ; 2T yea, many have been ruined, have fallen,
and perished,0 for woman's sake. 28 And now, will you not believe
me? Is not the king great in his power? Do not all countries
fear to touch him? 29Yet I sawd the king's concubine, Apama,e
the daughter of Artabazos son of Thamasios, sitting at the king's
right hand; 30I saw her snatch the crown from his head, and
place it upon her own; with her left hand she slapped the king.
31 In spite of all this/ the king gazed upon her with open mouth.
As oft as she smiled upon him, he laughed; if she became vexed,
he wheedled, that he might be restored to favor. 32Sirs, must
not the women be mighty, seeing they do such things as these ?

33 Then the king and the nobles looked at one another.5 There
upon he went onh to speak of truth. 34Sirs, are not women

aEfc TTJV 6d\a<r<rav Tr\eiv is not Greek; the ets merely reproduces an Aramaic
2. If C11I2 was the verb used, we know from the Syriac that it was regularly
construed with this preposition.

b The Greek irXeTov /uSXXoj/ suggests at once the Aramaic "^HP fc^il?;

the Hebrew has no idiom which would fit exactly here.

c Greek ^/xdproo-av, but we may be certain that this singularly feeble anti
climax did not exist in the original. The Syriac does not render by ^L** , but

chooses a verb (fs) which may mean either "err" or "be ruined;" and
doubtless some such word stood in the Aramaic.

dGuthe has: Und doch schauten sie (!) ihn.

eOn this name, and the other names in the verse, see above. The Latin
of the Lucca codex (Lagarde, Septuaginta-Studien, II, 17), mentioned above,
has here: et Debannapenem [Lag. edits, Debanna pemen] filia Bezzachi . . . .
concubina regis sedentem vidi circa regem. Lagarde did not attempt to
explain this, but only observed that the latter part of this singular word ("des
sonderbaren Worts") contained the name ' Airri/j.r)v. The rest is simply a
mutilated [vi]debam, which rendered the Greek e0e6povt>. This Lucca text is
derived from a close translation of the Syrian Greek recension.

fThe Greek KO.I irpbs Totfrots, "moreover," is probably a mistranslation of

HDI njn.

* There is no need to attempt, as Fritzsche and others have done, to explain
the singular " idiom " efiXeirov els rbv trepov. Even Codex B may suffer from
scribal errors, and in this case the original was unquestionably epXeirov ef$ els
rbv erepov — this being the preposition with which the verb in this sense is
most commonly construed. One eis fell out by accident.

hSee the note on 3:16.

THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 55

mighty ? Great is the earth, and lofty the sky, and swift the sun
in his course, for he rounds the circuit of the heavens, and returns
again to his place in a single day. 35 Is not he great who does
this? Buta truth is greatest and mightiest of all.b 36A11 the
earth invokes truth, and the heavens praise her; and all created

things0 totter and tremble d and with her6 is no error f at

all. 3? Perverse is the wine, perverse is the king, perverse are
women; perverse are all the children of men, and all their works,
all such alike, ifg truth abide not in them; and in their perversity
they shall perish. 3S But truth endures, and grows ever stronger ;
yea, lives and prevails for ever and ever. 39With her ish no

a Could any Greek writer, not a translator, have been content to use Kat
for the conjunction both here and at the beginning of vs. 38?

bThe addition of irapd to the comparative degree of the adjective prob
ably translates fa W. Of the Syriac.

c "Epya probably translating XnTOy.

dlt seems probable that something is missing here, perhaps only a few
words. What we have in our present text is not sufficient to give the third
c 1 a u s e of the verse a satisfactory connection with its surroundings, nor to pre
pare the way for the last clause. We might imagine some such progress of
the thought as this: "And all created things totter and tremble [before her,
for she alone is perfect,] and with her is no error at all." It must be remem
bered that all our manuscripts and versions are derived from a single faulty
Greek codex, which in turn represented a translation made from a more or
less imperfect Aramaic text.

eThe only well attested reading is juer' aurou, " with him." Thus both
the Lagarde text and the Egyptian text (represented by the codices A, B, and
their fellows). The reason for the choice of the masculine pronoun was of
course the desire to find, or to introduce, the mention of God in this most
important passage, especially after the seeming mention of him in the words
$s ravra iroiei, in the preceding verse; see further the note on vs. 40. In all
probability, Josephus had before him the reading /ACT' avrov; at all events,
he adopts the interpretation which it embodies. Since the Greek translation
was made after this story had become a part of the Chronicler's history, it is
most likely that the translator himself chose the masculine pronoun here.
But in the original, the suffix pronoun certainly referred to "Truth."' The
necessity of this is so obvious that some Greek codices and the Latin version
have corrected accordingly.

f It is a pity that we do not know what Aramaic words are rendered by
d\'/i0€ia and dSix/a, in these verses. Supposing the former to have been Xt2tiJ1p,
the latter would have been some such word as XJI^ (literally "crookedness").

£ According to the conjecture already made; above, p. 25.

hKai OVK e<rri irap' avrrj Xa/j-ftdveiv KT£. is an unusual way of saying in Greek
"She does not accept," etc. The original was "pSS IDttb niYlb ^nX &6l.
How natural this form of words is in Aramaic may be seen from Deut. 10: 17,
where the Hebrew has simply D^DD Xll)*1 &O, while the Targum replaces this
by the same idiom which we have here.

56 EZRA STUDIES

respect of persons, nor seeking of profit,a but she executes judg
ment onb all the evil and wicked. All approve her acts, (40) and in
her judgment there is no injustice.0 40 And hersd is the might, and
the kingdom, and the power, and the majesty for ever and ever.6
Blessed of God isf truth! "And he ceased speaking.2 Then all
the people cried out, saying, Great is truth, and mightiest of all!
4" Then the king said to him : Ask what thou wilt, above what
was prescribed, and we will give it thee, since thou art proved
wisest; and thou shalt sit beside me, and be called my kinsman.

in. THE INTERPOLATOR'S ADDITIONS

It is most likely that the story in its original form ended at
this point (the end of verse 42) and in just this way. It is true
that the king is made to say: "Ask what thou wilt, above what
was prescribed, and we will give it thee;" but it is quite prob
able that this was merely a picturesque oriental flourish, and that
the hearers or readers were left to imagine for themselves what,

aAid0opa here in the post-classical sense "rewards" or "gifts;" the mean
ing being that Truth, as judge, neither regards persons nor takes bribes.
Cf. II Chron. 19:7, OVK eortf //.era Kvplov deov TJ/J-WV ddtKia ovde 6av/j,d(rai irpbawirov
ovde Xa/3etV 5wpa, a parallel which is interesting in view of the fact that the two
passages are presumably quite independent of each other.

bThe Greek dirb translating I'D . On the Aramaic idiom here, found also
Ezra 7:26, see above, p. 25.

cOn the reading of the Hexaplar Syriac in this clause, see above, p. 5.

d We must of course read either aurrjs or avry. The former (which is per
haps more likely to have been the original, if the Aramaic was nb*H) is the
reading of the Lagarde text ; the latter that of the Egyptian recension.

eThis sentence may well have been the origin of the doxology which has
been appended to the Lord's Prayer in Matt. 6: 13.

fThe reading of the Greek, evXoy-rjrbs 6 debs rys d\r)6elas, "blessed is the
God of truth," is manifestly unsuitable. If the speaker had intended to
advance from the praise of truth to that of God, he would have needed to
begin sooner. The least that we could require of him would be that he should
indicate the relation of God to truth. Verse 41, moreover, ignores any ascrip
tion of praise to God in the closing words of the discourse. Evidently, our
present reading is due to the same interpretation or redaction which found or
introduced the mention of the deity in vss. 35 and 36. The original was pre
sumably tf "JtC^p tfnbtf *!!Op , " Blessed of God is truth," the construct state
being employed in the manner familiar from the Old Testament. In all
probability, the Greek translator is the one who should be held responsible
for the misinterpretation both here and in vs. 36; see the note there. It is of
course possible that the whole clause is a later addition.

gThe Greek (!) phrase, ical eo-iuinjcre rov XaXetV, renders the Aramaic
; cf . for example the Targum of Job 32 : 1.

THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 57

if anything, it was that the young soldier requested. Certain it
is, at all events, that verse 42 as a whole was not written by the
interpolator, for he would not have ended it in this way; the
last clause only serves to interrupt his undertaking. If we sup
pose that the tale originally had another conclusion, which he has
replaced by his own, it is not of the least use to try to conjecture
what that conclusion was.

As has already been remarked, it was probably the interpolator
himself who inserted the gloss, "this was Zerubbabel," in 4:13;
and he now proceeds, with manifest skill, to effect the transition
to the Chronicler's narrative of the returning Jews and the help
given them by Cyrus. Only four verses (43—47 a) are needed at
this point, namely the following:

43 Then he said to the king : Remember the vow which thou didst
make, to build Jerusalem in the day when thou shouldst receive thy
kingdom™ ^and to send back all the vessels which were taken from
Jerusalem, which Cyrus when he first19 conquered Babylon brought
away,™ but vowed 21 to return them thither ; 45 and thou didst promise to
build the temple ivhich the Edomites burned™ when Judea was laid
waste by the Chaldeans. 46 And now, this is the thing ivhich I ask, my
lord the king, and for which I make request of thee, since such munifi
cence is thine ; 23 / ask that thou perform the vow which thou didst vow
to the King of Heaven^ with thine own lips to perform. 4T Then Darius
the king arose, and kissed him; and wrote for him letters, etc.

is From the order of the words in the Greek, coupled with our knowledge of the closeness
of this rendering, it is evident that the connection of clauses is that which I have given in the
translation: Darius had vowed to do these things when he should come to the throne.
According to the interpolator, this feast at the Persian capital took place at or very near
the beginning of Darius' reign. This is also made necessary by the sequel: the altar was
built by the returned exiles "in the seventh month" (of the first year of Darius), I Esdr.
5:46; the foundation of the temple was first laid "in the second year in the second month,"
5:55; and the interrupted work of building was renewed before the end of this same year,
thanks to the efforts of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, 6 : 1. All this chronology is
flatly contradicted by 5 : 6, to be sure ; see below, pp. 60 f.

19 We must read ript-aTo in place of the first TJU£O.TO ; cf. the note on 3:16. I see that Gaab
(cited in Fritzsche) has anticipated me in this conjecture.

20 The Greek has exwpurej/, "set apart," which might do here, but would not do in vs. 57,
where it is used in a similar context. The reading e£exo>p»j(rev, found in codex A, and
preferred by Fritzsche, is only a correction, and a poor one at that, for the verb e/cxwpe'io is
ordinarily intransitive. The interpolator's theory of the temple vessels was this: When
Cyrus took Babylon, he carried away some of these vessels to Susa, with the other plunder;
the rest of them, which were still in Babylon, he sent to Jerusalem by Sheshbazzar, promising
to send the remainder (those in Susa) at some later time. See also vs. 57 and the note
there. In both verses, 44 and 57, the original had a verb which meant to " bring forth " or
"carry away " (here probably pSSH) ; and this was misunderstood by the translator.

21 The voluit of the Latin version here must originally have been vovit.

22 Interesting as embodying the popular tradition in Palestine in the third century B. c.

23 On the Aramaic text of this clause, see above, p. 29, note.

2*An unusual and interesting title; also vs. 58, Dan. 4:34 (cf. 5:23).

58 EZRA STUDIES

At this point, the Chronicler's Hebrew narrative was reached.
The verse began with the words: "And Cyrus the king wrote
for him (i. e., Sheshbazzar) letters," etc. This the interpolator
altered skilfully, as usual. Up to this point the Aramaic
language had been used (see above, pp. 29 f.) ; now Hebrew
took its place. The transition, it should be observed, was a
particularly easy one, inasmuch as the vocabulary of this verse
and of the verses immediately following is almost identically the
same in the two languages. The Jewish reader of that day would
not have been disturbed by the change, and, indeed, might not
have noticed it at all until several verses of the Hebrew had
been read.

By this first editorial insertion, the interpolator gave the Story
of the Youths its connection with Jewish history. Darius the king
is asked by the victorious youth to fulfil his promises, (1) to
build Jerusalem; (2) to send to Jerusalem the temple vessels
which Cyrus had carried from Babylon to Susa, but had promised
to restore to the Jews; (3) to build the temple in Jerusalem. It
is noteworthy, and another striking illustration of the self-restraint
of the interpolator, that in these verses not a word is said
regarding the expedition of Zerubbabel and his friends
to Jerusalem! This youth was one of the three bodyguardsmen
of the king; he does not even ask for leave of absence, however,
but takes himself off (vs. 61) as a matter of course. The company
of Jews which now sets out from Babylonia is a very large one;
but the youth does not request, nor suggest, that they be allowed
to go, nor is any formal permission given. The way in which
it is simply taken for granted, in vs. 47, that "he" and "those
with him" are going up to people Jerusalem, is one of the most
satisfactory bits of incidental evidence that the juncture of the
patch with the main narrative — the continuation of Ezra 1 : 1-11 —
comes at just this point. Verses 47 ff. cannot possibly be regarded
as the sequel of 43-46.

A second patch was necessary after verse 56, at the point
where the prescriptions of the king for the returning exiles came
to an end. First of all, the interpolator had need to introduce
mention of his second instalment of temple vessels, in accordance
with verse 44. Moreover, the need of some transition from the
palace in Susa to the Jews in Babylonia, mentioned in the
next verse of the Chronicler, was sufficiently obvious. The inter-

THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 59

polator fills these needs easily, as usual. He also improves the
opportunity, in narrating the exit of the youth from the palace, to
introduce a little of the religious element which is so noticeably
lacking in the preceding tale. The five verses (originally Hebrew)
which constitute this patch read as follows:

57 And he sent forth all the vessels which Cyrus had brought^ from
Babylon ; and all which Cyrus had ordered to be made, he himself com
manded to make™ and send to Jerusalem.

58 And when the youth went forth, lifting up his face to heaven
toward Jerusalem?1 he blessed the King of Heaven ?* saying : 59 From
thee is victory, and from thee wisdom;29 thine is the glory, and I am
thy servant. 60 Blessed art thou, who hast given me wisdom ; and to
thee I give thanks, O Lord of our fathers. 61 So he took the letters and
went forth,30 and came to Babylon and told all his brethren. 62And
they blessed the God of their fathers, etc.

With verse 62 the Chronicler's narrative is resumed; and after
this point the work of the interpolator's hand is seen only in 5 : 2,
where the name "Cyrus" is changed to "Darius," and in 5:6,
where both this change of name and also other alterations have
been made (see below).

This latter verse, 5:6, is a good illustration of the difficulties
with which the interpolator was confronted in his attempt to make
the best of an impossible task. In some particulars, to be sure,
his expanded version of the history might have seemed even more
plausible than that of the Chronicler (it has been preferred in
recent times, for instance, by so acute a scholar as Sir Henry
Howorth) .31 Thus, in the Chronicler's narrative the career of
Zerubbabel is extended over more than a hundred years, from the
beginning of the reign of Cyrus down to the first years of the
reign of Darius II Nothus.32 It is, of course, unfair to impose
our chronology upon the Chronicler, who not only made the reign
of Darius I Hystaspis precede that of Cyrus, but also may have
thought the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I shorter than we

25 The Greek has exuipioei', but the Hebrew original probably had fcS^iri; see the note
on verse 44.

26 The Hebrew text here was very likely corrupt.

27 So also in the contemporaneous writings Dan. 6 : 11 ; Tobit 3 : 11 f .
2** See the note on verse 46.

29 If the author of the Story of the Youths were writing this verse, we should expect him
at least to add : " and with thee is truth!"

3° Namely, from Susa. I do not know that any commentator has ever tried to explain
the words, "and came to Babylon," in this verse.

31 See also Marquart, 1 .ndamente, pp. 42, 65. '^ See above, p. 38.

60 EZRA STUDIES

know them to have been; but even so, his life of Zerubbabel is
too long, and the scenes in it are much too far apart.33 But in the
interpolated edition of the history, the dramatic unity is as
perfect as any one could wish. Zerubbabel, the young Hebrew, is
one of the most trusted attendants of the Persian king. Sent by
him to Jerusalem with a large company, as a reward for his wise
discourse, he restores the Jewish community ; builds the altar of
burnt-offerings ; lays the foundation of the temple ; repulses the
wicked Samaritans and their allies; is stopped by them in his
work, but begins it again almost immediately, before the end of
the same "second year;" secures an edict of the king in his favor;
and finishes the work in triumph. And all this happens within
the space of six years! It is no wonder that this revised version
of the history became so popular as to supplant completely the
older version. But the interpolator's triumph was a very preca
rious one, for his improved story of Zerubbabel contained such
contradictions as could never stand the test of a critical examina
tion. Either he was not fully aware of these contradictions
(interpolators very often fail to see all the consequences of their
work), or else he shared the current dislike of erasing the written
word, and was willing to rest his fate on popular approval and
elastic exegesis. At all events, he allowed such telltale verses as
I Esdr. 5:536 ( = Ezra 3:7), 68 ( = Ezra 4: 3), 70 (=Ezra4:5),
and the date in I Esdr. 5 : 6, to remain in their places. In I Esdr.
5 :70, for example, after the narrative which tells how Zerubbabel and
his companions, in the second year of their return to Jeru
salem (verse 54), in the reign of Darius, began to build the temple,
but were stopped by their enemies, we read that these enemies
"hindered the completion of the building during all the lifetime of
king Cyrus, so that the building was stopped until the reign of
king Darius!34 Here the only refuge of the interpolator would be
in the very lame explanation that the verse was merely a retro
spect, its meaning being that these enemies were able to stop the
work of building from the time when the foundation was laid by
Sheshbazzar down to the time of Darius. Even more trouble
some is the verse I Esdr. 5:6, to which allusion has been made.

33 This was the Chronicler's own fault, to be sure, and the necessary result of his choos
ing to make Jeshua and Zerubbabel the leaders of his great "return" under king Cyrus.
They were already known, from the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, to have flourished
under a " Darius," who, from the chronology current among the Jews in the last three cen
turies B. c., could have been only Darius Nothus.

3* The text appears to be slightly corrupt here; cf. the Hebrew, and also 6:1 ( = Ezra 5:1).

THE STOKY OF THE THREE YOUTHS 61

This originally contained the Chronicler's date of the return from
the exile: "in the second year of the reign of Cyrus king of
Persia, in the month Nisan, on the first day of the month." The
interpolator gave this a connection with the mention of Zerubba-
bel, just preceding, and made out of it: "who spoke wise words
before Darius king of Persia, in the second year of his reign, in
the month Nisan, on the first day of the month." But even with
this alteration, the date is absolutely impossible in the interpo
lated history. There is no process, however violent, by which it
can be brought into agreement with the dates which follow, in
5:46, 55, 6:1. The interpolator may have seen this difficulty and
defied it, but it is more likely that it escaped his notice. He was
probably not especially interested in chronology, and found it
easy to overlook such details as these.

In spite of its glaring contradictions, the interpolated edition
of the history became the popular one, thanks to the discourses of
the three youths and to the improved story of Zerubbabel, and in
a short time had completely supplanted the original form ; so com
pletely, in fact, that not a trace of the uninterpolated work has
come down to us, whether in manuscript or version, in Jewish or
Christian tradition.35

35 As was shown above, pp. 3 f., our canonical Ezra is merely a mutilated recension of
the interpolated book. This will be further demonstrated in the sequel.

THE APPARATUS FOR THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF
CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH

1 did not at first intend to devote a separate chapter to this
subject, as I did not wish to take the time and space which would
be necessary. But in the process of editing and annotating the
portions of the text which are to follow, it became evident that
some extended justification of my critical procedure would be
indispensable. The original plan of setting forth the most neces
sary facts in an introductory page or two, to be supplemented by
subsequent footnotes, might have left room for the suspicion of
arbitrary or hasty methods. Other considerations, moreover,
seem to make it especially desirable that I should give here some
clear account, however brief and imperfect, of those parts of the
apparatus regarding which I feel able to speak with confidence.
The chief of these considerations are the following: (1) No critical
use has ever been made of the versions of these books, nor even
of any one Greek version or recension.1 (2) No attempt has been
made to determine or state the principles of such critical use.
(3) The conclusions which I have already reached and stated2 in
regard to some of the versions and recensions of the Ezra history
are so revolutionary as to need all the added corroboration of this
nature that can be given them.

(4) Many other facts, hitherto unobserved, regarding manu
scripts and versions and their characteristics and mutual relations

1 1 do not wish to seem to deal unfairly with those recent publications in which some
attempt has been made to emend the massoretir, text of the one or the other of these books :
Kittel's Books of Chronicles, 1895 ; Guthe-Batten's Ezra and Nehemiah, 1901 ; these being the
reconstructed Hebrew-Aramaic text of the Polychrome Bible ; also Benzinger's Biicher der
Chronik, 1901; Kittel's Biicher der Chronik, 1902; Siegfried's Esra, Nehemia und Esther,
1901; Bertholet's Esra und Nehemia, 1902; and Marti's edition of the Aramaic portions of
Ezra in his Grammatik der biblisch-aramdischen Sprache, 1896. But in the following pages
sufficient evidence will be given to justify fully the assertion that no one of these attempts,
so far as its treatment of text and versions is concerned, deserves to be called "critical."
In all of these cases the procedure is without any fixed principles, or any preliminary study
of either text or versions with a view to ascertaining their character. Moreover, no one.of
these scholars shows any approach to thoroughness in his employment of the materials
which he actually attempts to use. If in any instance the criticism of the text went so far
as to include the careful taking of the testimony of even codex B (ordinarily called "the
Septuagint") throughout the whole extent of the book or passage treated, the evidence of
this fact at least does not appear, while numerous indications seem to show the contrary.

2 Especially in chap, ii, passim; also in my Composition of Ezra-Neh.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 63

are so important as to deserve some treatment here, at least in
outline. In particular, the proof of the very momentous fact that
Theodotion was the author of our "canonical" Greek version of
Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. ought at last to be rendered.3

I. NATURE OF THE TEXT-CRITICAL PROBLEM

In our Hebrew-Aramaic tradition of the Chronicler's history,
we have a text which is neither one of the well-preserved of those
which constitute the Old Testament, nor yet among the very
worst. The many lists of names have been carelessly handled,
and are in correspondingly bad condition. The narrative portions
read smoothly on the whole — smoothly, that is, when their author
ship is taken into account — but nevertheless give plain evidence
of being corrupt in many places. The trouble lies not merely in
single words and phrases, but also in the apparent misplacement
of a few long passages, one of which consists of several chapters.
There is ground for the suspicion, moreover, that one or more
passages of importance have been lost from our massoretic recen
sion. There is good evidence of a gap after Ezra 1:11; something
is plainly missing between 6:5 and 6:6; while the presence of
the Story of the Youths in I Esdras suggests its own important
problems.

When we come to the testimony of the Greek versions, we are
confronted with two somewhat widely differing forms of the history.
One of them agrees quite closely with MT, and has the same
extent and arrangement; the other — obviously a mere fragment —
begins near the end of Chronicles and extends not quite through
the story of Ezra. During the part of the history covered by the
'two in common, the difference between them lies in (1) the words
and phrases of the narrative, the divergence here (i. e., in the
Greek) being very great; (2) the position of extended passages;
(3) material of very considerable amount found in the one
recension but not in the other. We have in the Greek, more
over, clear testimony to two differing Semitic texts, the differ-

3 The following discussion of the critical apparatus is only fragmentary, leaving a good
many highly important matters either half treated or not touched upon at all. It contains
the things in which I have happened to be especially interested, being in the main based
upon collations made and facts observed by me twelve years ago, in the course of my study
of the literary and historical problems of Ezra-Neh.; and the conclusions are the same,
with some slight modification, as those which I then reached. But though the discussion
is incomplete, I believe that it will at least lay a sure foundation for further investigation

64 EZRA STUDIES

ence being such as to suggest either a long history of trans
mission along independent lines, or else an unusual amount of
freedom in the handling of the texts. Of course, both of these
causes might have been operative. And finally, each one of
the two main forms of the narrative, the "canonical" and the
"apocryphal," has come down to us in a double Greek tradi
tion, the one embodied in Lagarde's edition/ and the other con
tained in the most of the existing manuscripts, including the
codices (A, B, JS) used in Swete's Old Testament in Greek.
That is, for a portion of the Chronicler's history amounting to
about thirteen chapters, we have at every point to compare four
Greek texts.

Of other versions, aside from the Latin of Jerome, which
was made from our Hebrew-Aramaic recension, we have to take
into account three renderings of the I Esdras Greek, namely,
the Syriac (the work of Paul of Telia), the Ethiopic, and the
old Latin. The Syriac and Arabic versions of the canonical
Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. have long been known to be late and well-
nigh worthless — the Arabic absolutely so — and any attempt
to make a critical use or "investigation" of them is a waste
of time.

It is evident from this statement of the case that the solution
of the textual problem is to be gained chiefly from an examination
of the Greek recensions. We need to know the relative age —
and, if possible, the actual age — of the two (or more) Greek
translations; the principles according to which they were made,
and the extent to which they can be trusted; their mutual rela
tions; the character and quality of the Semitic text which lies
behind the Greek I Esdras. And it is obviously very important
(as it is everywhere else in the Old Testament) to inquire minutely
into the history of the transmission of the text, finding out how
and to what extent the original readings have been accidentally
or deliberately changed, and distinguishing carefully the divergent
lines of tradition which can be recognized. What is the real
significance, for textual criticism, of the two recensions which are
contained, respectively, in the editions of Swete and Lagarde?
What manuscripts, or families of manuscripts, are especially note
worthy ? We have one absolutely sure witness to the "Septuagint"
text of Origen, in the Syro-Hexaplar version of I Esdras and a

* Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars prior graece, Gottingae, 1883.

TEXTUAL CKITICISM or CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 65

part of Nehemiah ; which of our Greek MSS stand nearest to this
version? In a word: On what principles shall one proceed who
wishes to study critically the Hebrew- Aramaic text of these books
with the aid of this unusually complicated and unusually interest
ing apparatus?

These are all questions which must be answered before any
satisfactory criticism of the text of any part of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh.
can be undertaken. Up to the present time, the most of these
questions have not even been raised, and not one of them has been
answered with any approach to correctness. An unscholarly use
of "the LXX" has been, more than any other one thing, the bane
of modern Old Testament study; and if there is any portion of
the Old Testament in which the consequences have been especially
mischievous, that portion is Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. Those who have
attempted to emend the Semitic text of these books by the aid of
the Greek have been wont to take at random any seemingly useful
"reading" of the nearest available text of the canonical Greek, or
of I Esdras, choosing in each case either codex B (one of the
worst possible MSS, as it happens) or "Lucian," as the need of the
occasion may decide, treating all alike, and usually without making
any attempt to criticize the Greek itself, or to go behind the text-
reading of the edition which happens to be used. Few of those
who have dealt at length with Chron., Ezra-Neh., or I Esdras,
have attempted to state what conclusions, if any, they have reached
in regard to text and versions. A. Klostermann's article "Ezra
und Nehemia," in Hauck's Realencyclopadie* , has an account of
the several versions of these two "books" which contains a good
many acute observations as to details, but does not give much
help in matters which are of primary importance. It is remark
able, moreover, that in his whole discussion he should make no
mention at all of the I Esdras version. Even a brief examination
of this "apocryphon" might have shown him its fundamental
significance.

An introductory word in regard to the Hexapla. I have
already (above, pp. 1—4) touched upon the status of the Chron. -
Ezr. books in Origen's great work, and the apparent lack of Hexa-
plaric material in the MSS which are now known. As for Origen's
fifth column, containing his "LXX" text, I shall show in the
sequel that we have extremely good information in regard to it.
Concerning the other Hexaplaric versions of these books next to

66 EZRA STUDIES

nothing has hitherto been known. Field's Hexapla has the
appearance of containing some material here, but really gives
hardly anything more than a collation of L with the received text.
Whether the plus ofLis Hexaplar, or not, there is nothing to
show. Of specific ascriptions there are surprisingly few, and these
are confined to the books of Chronicles. Supposed readings of
Aquila are noted in I Chron. 15:27; 25:1, 3; 29:25. Marked
with the 2 of Symmachus are readings found in I Chron. 5 : 26 ;
9:1; 11:5; 15:27; 21:10; 25:1, 3; II Chron. 12:7; 19:11;
23:13; 26:5; 30:5; 32:5; 33:3; 34:22.

The absence of any readings from Theodotion, ordinarily a
favorite among the secondary translators and a frequent source of
variant Greek readings, is very noticeable. This fact, of itself,
might well have suggested to students, long ago, the probability
that Theodotion himself was the author of our standard version of
Chron. -Ezr.-Neh. As I have previously remarked (above, pp. 3,
7), no sure trace of the work of Aquila or Symmachus in the
book of Ezra-Nehemiah has heretofore been found. I believe
that the hand of each of these two translators can be recognized
in one or two places, at least, and have no doubt that a careful
search would reveal other instances. In all probability, the
"Aquila" and "Symmachus" columns of the Hexapla were both
duly filled, in the canonical Chron. -Ezr.-Neh., the "Theodotion"
column alone being vacant. In I Esdras, on the other hand,
the "LXX" column alone was filled, all the others remaining
unoccupied.

II. THEODOTION THE AUTHOR OF OUR "CANONICAL" GREEK VER
SION OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH

I have more than once stated my own conviction that the trans
lation of the Chronicler's history which now stands in our Greek
Bible was the work of Theodotion.5 Others who have held and
expressed this view are Grotius (1644), Whiston (1722), Pohl-
mann (1859), and most recently, Sir Henry Howorth; see above,
p. 16. No one of these scholars, however, excepting the first
named, has been able to bring forward any direct evidence tend
ing to establish the theory. The manner of the argument has
been simply this: 'Our Greek version of the Chronicler's history
bears the marks of a late origin, especially when compared with

5 Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, London,1903, pp. 139 f . ; above,
pp. 3 f .

TEXTUAL CEITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 67

the version preserved in "First Esdras." Theodotion's version
of Daniel supplanted the older translation, in the Greek Bible ; it
is therefore a plausible supposition that it was Theodotion who
made the later translation of the Chronicler's books.' Grotius,
in his annotations to the Old Testament, pointed out an interesting
bit of evidence, though in such a way as to leave some doubt as
to the conclusion to be drawn from it. In a note on II Chron.
35 : 6, he says that our Greek version of Chronicles is that of
Theodotion, while the two chapters (35 and 36) of II Chron.
with which I Esdras begins are "from the Septuagint." He
also adds: " Theodotionis autem Merpretationem in Parali-
pomenis et aliis quibusdam libris recepit Graeca Ecclesia" He
expresses himself cautiously in this passage, saying nothing either
in regard to the remainder of I Esdras or to the canonical Ezr.-
Neh., for the obvious reason that the bit of proof which he hap
pens to be using here, namely the rendering of the Hebrew word
HC3, would be a conspicuous failure in Ezra 6:19 ff. (=1 Esdr.
7:10 if.). "Theodotion," he has just observed, very acutely,
"semper vertit c/xzo-e/c, non ut alii interpretes TraV^a. " f The pos
sible value of this observation is apparent when we notice that the
form (frao-e/c (or rather </>a<7e^) occurs eighteen times in the book

6 The assertion is a little too sweeping, for some of the "other translators " rendered
the Hebrew word in still other ways, though Grotius may not have been aware of the fact.
And indeed, from the citations given in Field's Hexapla it might seem that the translite
ration </>a<rex, outside the books of Chronicles, is not the property of Theodotion.
It is not only lacking in Field's list (pp. xl f.) of the Theodotion transliterations, but is even
attributed to Symmachusin the three passages where its occurrence is noted by him,
namely Ex. 12:11, 27; Num. 9:2. But whoever examines carefully the material collected
in Field's footnotes in these three places will ascertain the following facts : (1) According to
the Syr.-Hex. (by far the most trustworthy witness of those cited) the word JlDSt in Ex.
12:27, was rendered by "the LXX" fraaxa; by Aquila vTre'p/Sao-t? ; by Symmachus j-»»^2 ira<T\a.
(not </>curex, as Field gives !), the difference from LXX being in the other words of the
clause; and by Theodotion "like the LXX." In 12:11 the renderings are the same, except
that Symmachus is said to have had nd<r\a (not "4>a<rex " !) vn-ep/oiaxTjo-is. (2) Theodoret, whom
we should suppose to have had good means of information, says that Theodotion's rendering
was </>a<rex. (3) According to notes found in a few codices, in Ex. 12:11 and Num. 9:2, the
transliteration <£<xo-ex is attributed to Symmachus, or to "Aquila and Symmachus." Such
attributions as these last, coming from unknown hands, are notoriously untrustworthy. The
ancient copyists, scribblers, and annotators were as careless as our modern ones, which is
saying a great deal. False ascriptions abound, and each one is likely to be copied into
several other MSS. Hence most of the evidence of "double versions" of Aquila (Field,
pp. xxiv ff.) or Symmachus (pp. xxxvi f.). With regard to the rendering of FIDS i the
transliteration is exactly in the manner of Theodotion, and not at all in the manner of Sym
machus. Indeed, the use of this barbarism by the latter translator would be altogether in
explicable. The fact is probably this : Theodotion's </>a<rex was replaced at a very early date,
in most MSS, by na<r\a. (cf. the many cases of this kind cited below), and in the Theod. text
known to Origen the latter word only was found. The Theodotion version was very well known
and much used ; then, when the rejected word <t>a<rf\ survived in a few MSS, it is natural that
it should have been attributed by some to the work of Symmachus, the least known and
used of the later Hexaplaric versions.

68 EZRA STUDIES

of Chronicles, but nowhere else in our Greek Old Testament. As
for the one passage in Ezr.-Neh. in which the passover is men
tioned, namely Ezr. 6 : 19-21, it is of course easy to suppose that
the long familiar word Trda^a was substituted at an early date;
there were many such substitutions in the early history of the
Greek Bible.

The problem of identifying a given translation as the work of
Theodotion is in some respects a peculiar one. Whoever makes
the search for this translator's own work, with the purpose of
setting apart everything that could be called characteristic of
him, will probably be surprised to find how little in extent the
material really is. We have, it is true, "Theodotion's version" of
the whole book of Daniel; but this is in reality merely a revision
of the old Greek translation, whose renderings and construc
tions are generally retained, the alteration consisting mainly
in such cutting, shaping, and supplementing as to make it fit
closely the later traditional Hebrew text. In the case of the
extensive fragments of Theodotion's version of Jeremiah which
have been preserved (see Swete, Introduction to the Old Testa
ment in Greek, pp. 44-46) it is not known whether the work is
merely a version, or an independent effort. At all events, there
is here extremely little that could contribute to any basis of com
parison with such a book as the Chronicler's history. The
manner of the author, or reviser, in his attempt to hold fast to the
Hebrew, is indeed apparent, and it is the same in all three of the
versions named: Daniel, Jeremiah, and the Chronicler; but more
definite evidence than this is required. The comparison of the
diction of our Greek version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. with that of
Theodotion's part in Daniel reveals a few striking coincidences,
which will be noticed below, as well as the obvious general
resemblance. In addition to the material already mentioned, we
have, for our knowledge of Theodotion's work, only the scattered
renderings of his in various parts of the Old Testament which have
been preserved in Hexaplar codices. It might therefore seem to
be a very difficult matter to collect material sufficiently extensive,
and sufficiently characteristic, to serve as a sure basis for com
parison. If we were dealing with ordinary translators, this would
be true, and a trustworthy conclusion might be despaired of; but
fortunately this translator has one peculiarity so pronounced and
so well understood that the proof can be rendered complete.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 69

As students of the Hexaplar versions long ago observed,
Theodotion's chief characteristic is his tendency to transliterate
the difficult or doubtful words of his Hebrew text. See especially
Field's Hexapla, I, xxxix-xlii, and Swete's Introduction, p. 46.
Because of his extreme caution, he refuses to decide in cases of
uncertainty, but simply writes out the troublesome Hebrew word
in Greek letters. The extent to which he has done this is very
remarkable. Field gives a list (pp. xl f.) of more than ninety
words of this kind, collected from the material already known to
us as Theodotion's, including the most of the books of the Old Testa
ment. Doubtless this number could be considerably increased,
even from the sources which we already have, if we were better
able to criticize them ; moreover, it may safely be taken for granted
that the ancient collectors of Hexaplaric readings generally dis
regarded such of Theodotion's transliterations as had resulted
from an obviously corrupt and easily corrected text.
Even in the MSS, indeed, the tendency to get rid of these
unnecessary barbarisms is quite marked; see below. Now, this
very same striking peculiarity of transliteration is found in the
Greek of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., from the beginning to the end of the
work, and with the examples pretty evenly distributed. The
fact has not hitherto been observed, and the number and char
acter of the instances will probably prove a surprise to Old
Testament scholars. When the comparison is made with the
similar instances collected by Field, it will at once be plain that
we are dealing with the same translator. I subjoin a list of
the transliterations of this kind which occur in Chron.-Ezr.-Neh.,
not claiming that it is complete. It will be seen that it includes
examples of all the classes of instances found elsewhere in Theo-
dotion. There are the unusual words, such as *fi35 /ce<jxf)ovp,
D"1"!^!"! OavvovpeifjL-, words of ambiguous meaning in their context
like "GDSl a/cxexap, fYVV^TiE o-epo-epcoO ; technical terms not capable
of exact translation, such as rVT^bS a\r]fjL(06, "jTQ ftadwv. Then
there are the many cases where, the text had become slightly
corrupt. In a considerable number of the examples which follow,
the difficulty with the word was due solely to the confusion of
1 and "» by copyists; thus, ^w\^\a for tlb^b fcTji, /ue#o>e<7et^ for
D^irrrri/J . In other cases, two of the letters of the Hebrew
word had become accidentally transposed; thus afieSTjpei/j, for
for D^UniVJ , apaaeveiti for tV^n ,

70 EZRA STUDIES

for 2£2. 7 In the most of these cases of text-corruption,
the true reading was not hard to find, and almost any translator
would have made the emendation for himself. It is eminently
characteristic of Theodotion and his method that he refused to
take any such responsibility. Then, finally, there are the per
fectly well-known words, such as aiv, yai, yav, pavaa, regarding
whose exact meaning or use in certain passages the translator
may have been in doubt.8 Concerning the occasional procedure
of Theodotion in such cases, see again Field and Swete, in the
places named. One must agree with Field, that there are some
instances in which it is impossible for us to find any sufficient
excuse for the transliteration.
The following is the list:9

1. a/3/3ovs (See no. 37.)

2. a£e&; Ezr. 2:58. For 'H33?, "servants." In the phrase

nb'blZJ "Ha? , the name Solomon was not recognized :
viol aftefy 2eX/>ta, hence the nT23> was cautiously trans
literated. It was certainly not thought of as forming
part of a proper name. (L has viol TWV SovXcov
fjicov: two alterations.)

3. a/3e8r)pew adovicieip I Chron. 4:22. MT Dy

"the words are ancient."

4. a/3eipa Neh. 1:1. fTPan, "the palace." So 7:2, fleipa.

(L has /3a/ot9 in both places.)

5. ayyat, II Chron. 26:9; in the L text only. For argfi , "the

valley." See also no. 29, and below, p. 80.

6. ayovyeifji II Chron. 9:10; in three cursives only; see below,

p. 80. MT D"B*Db» (but in I Kings 10:11 f. D"Mb»),
"algum wood."

7 Of course, such instances as these and the preceding ones would generally not be
recorded by the ancient collectors of Hexaplaric readings. The fact that they originated
in mere blunders was apparent.

8In the case of the transliteration <J>ea, for HHS > "governor," it may be that Theodo
tion evaded the translation because he was not quite satisfied with any of the ordinary
readings of the word: o-rpaTTj-y/os, eTrapxos, ap^wv, r)yen<av; or because he did not wish to take
the responsibility of choosing among them. It is perhaps worthy of remark, in this connec
tion, that in the Greek of Hag. 1:1, 14, the word HHS is not rendered at all.

9The orthography varies considerably in the MSS, and I record usually only one form,
without wasting time over the vain attempt to determine the original. Of course the varia
tions between i and ei, ai and e, etc., have no significance whatever, and are rarely of any use
even in determining groups of manuscripts. Scribes were free to exchange them at pleasure,
and did so. As ei is used most commonly (though not consistently) for the long i sound in
our best-known uncials, I have adopted it. The plural endings -ei/t and -eiv (the latter
apparently later and due to the influence of spoken Aramaic) are also frequently exchanged
in the MSS.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 71
7. aScoprjefji Neh. 3:5. MT DITTW, "their nobles." (L: ol

8. aOepaada Ezr. 2:63; Neh. 7:65, 70. For MVJhnn (title).

9. aOov/cieifJi (See no. 3.)

10. ai\afji IIGhron. 3:4. MT DblK , "porch."

11. aiv Neh. 2:14; 12:37; in the'latter passage the MSS have

alvdv. For "^y , "spring." (L has in both cases rr)?
777777)9.)

12. a\w<oO I Chron. 15:20. MT rfeb? . (L: irepl TW /cpv-

(frfov, as in the Psalm-superscriptions.)

13. apaacv&e I Chron. 15:21. MT rrrEEn . (L: irepl r^

67807;?; cf. Ps. 6:1; 12:1.)

14. apaa I Chron. 2:52. For nXVJ (MT ninrj , "the seer").

It seems impossible to determine whether Theodotion
regarded this as a proper name, or not. The original
rendering here seems to have been: '°2ical rjaav viol TO>
2o)/3aX jrarpl KapiaOiapeifA apaa ecrei A.fifiavuo09 ^v^acr-
(f>ea)0 KapiaQiaeLp, Ai^aXet/^, At(/)ei^etft, K.T.\. See nos.
38 and 63.

15. apiri\ I Chron. 11:22. MT b^^X, which Theodotion cer

tainly did not regard as a proper name. (L inserts
mow?, from the Greek of II Sam. 23:20.)

16. aaafaifji I Chron. 26:15, 17. MT D^SCK , "stores."

17. a<txt>ov(ra)0 II Chron. 26:21. MT (ketlb) rVTOSfi , "sepa-

rateness."

18. axexap Neh. 3:22. For *©3n , "the circuit." (L: rov

TrpwTord/cov, corrected from a reading "Out"! . )

19. axovX II Chron. 25:18 (twice). For Him, "the thistle."

20. j3aa\Taafji Ezr. 4:8, 9, 17. For D?B ^"2 , "reporter of

21. fiaOvv (A /3aSo>z/,L Parent) Ezr. 7:22. For -pro, "baths"

(the liquid measure).

22. Patcxovpiois Neh. 13:31. For D^3S , "firstfruits." (L:

TTptoroyevr) fJLao~i v. )

23. papa I Chron. 16:39; 21:29; II Chron. 1:13. For fTJa ,

"high place."

24. Peipa (See no. 4.)

25. (Bev- for 1^, "son," in compounds: I Chron. 11:34, @eve

Acra/i, for DISH ^^ (see below, p. 79) ; see also
no. 33.

72 EZRA STUDIES

26. firjO- for fYD, "house," in cases where it is evidently a

separate word: Neh. 3:16, /3i]0 ayafiapeip D^'^Jl 3TT2 ;
3:20 f., j3rj0 e\iacrovfi irurbtf IVa (Eliashib named in
this very verse as the high priest, and cf. vs. 1) ; 3:24,
a&pia m72 fVU; 3:31, faO avva6iveip rru
cf. vs. 26! (In all of these cases, L trans
lates the word ITU.)

27. 7a/3??9 I Chron. 4:9. From a reading yi3?2 , rendered &>?

7a/3?;?, where MT has 2£22 , "in pain." (L: ev &a-
TTTcocret. )

28. yafa Ezr. 5:17; 6:1; 7:20. For XTDj , "treasure."

29. yai Neh. 2:15, in the L text and the cursive 121; 3:13, in L

only. For &Tj, "valley." See also no. 5, and below, p. 80.

30. yav o?a II Chron. 36:8. For fcWr "j? , "the garden of

'Uzza." The passage containing these words is wanting
in MT, and also in I Esdras, but certainly stood in the
Hebrew text from which Theodotion translated; see
further below. The phrase occurs also in II Kings
21:18, 26, where it is rendered (in all the Greek texts)
ev TO) KiJTrq) Of a.

31. yao-/3apr)vo$ Ezr. 1:8. For "Bra, "treasurer." The ter

mination -77^09 suggested by ya£apr]v6s (for fcOTj), Dan.
5:7, 11, 15, etc.?

32. ycSSovp I Chron. 12:21. For 1TO , "troop." (The same

transliteration — origin unknown — in one of the texts of
I Sam. 30:8. It may well be doubted whether the
ascription, by the cursive 243, of the rendering o-varpe^-
/xaro? to Theodotion, in I Sam. 30:8, is correct. Notice
the similar mistake — this time concerning Aquila —
recorded in Field's Hexapla on II Sam. 3:22, in regard
to this same word. May not the transliteration be Theo
dotion' s in all these places?)

33. 777 0ev evvop II Chron. 28:3; 33:6. For D3J1 p iC3, "the

valley of the son of Hinnom." Cf. no. 25; also nos. 5
and 29. (L has ev <t>dpayyi Be^ewo/i.)

34. 7o)Xa(9 II Chron. 4:12, 13. MT ttfe , "bowl-capitals."

(L: ra? /3a<m?. )

35. <ya)\rj\a Neh. 2:13. MT nW K^Gl) , ("and I went out

through the gate of the) valley by night." (L has

TEXTUAL CRITICISM or CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 73

36. Safap II Chron. 3:16; 4:20; 5:7, 9. For TTJ , the

"innermost sanctuary" of Solomon's temple. This
transliteration is used by others than Theodotion.

37. e/3Sa0 aj3/3ov<; I Chron. 4:21. For y5Qn ma*, "manu

facture of fine linen."

38. eo-et I Chron. 2:52. For ^H, "half." Immediately below,

in vs. 54, the word is translated; cf. no. 63. (The
passage is lacking in the L text, which omits — because
of homoeoteleuton — the last three words of vs. 52 and
the first three words of vs. 53. In both A and B the
passage is badly miswritten; see no. 14.)

39. e(f>ovS I Chron. 15:27. For TSK, "ephod." (L: eV o-roXg

Pvaa-ivrj.') The transliteration occurs outside of Chron. -
Ezr.-Neh.

40. &KX<» I Chron. 28:11, 20. MT, in vs. 11, V3TD?,10 "its

treasuries." (L, in both verses: rwv aTroBrjfccov auroO.)
In MT the word and its context are missing in vs. 20,
though they must have stood there originally — a fact
which seems to have been generally overlooked. Neither
in his Polychrome Chronicles (1895) nor in his Backer
der Chronik ( 1902 ) does Kittel discover that our
Hebrew text has accidentally lost a considerable passage
(more than a dozen words) at this point. Benzinger
(1901) does no better. This is a good illustration of
the way in which "the Septuagint" is commonly used.
The passage in the Greek, in its original form, reads as
follows: real IBov TO TrapdSei'yfJLa TOV vaov /cal TOV oi/cov
avTOV KOI %aK%G) avTOV fcal TO, VTrepwa /cal ra?
ra? ecrarrepa? ical TOV ol/cov TOV IXcur/JLOV, ical TO
oifcov KvpLov. The necessity of this to its context is
apparent from vs. 21 compared with vss. 11-13. The
omission in the Hebrew of MT was caused by homoeote
leuton, the passage being preceded by HIIT IT2 mia*
and ending with FTlfT ITa r\^2T\ . The translator,
then, actually wrote this word £a#%&> twice.

41. Oavvovpew Neh. 3:11; 12:38. For D^DH , "furnaces."

Neh. 12:38 is wanting in the codices A B tf , but is
present in many cursives and in the L text, and was
included in Theodotion's translation. See further, below.

i°It is possible that the original transliteration was yw£aK\<a, and that the first syl
able was corrupted to rwf fas in cod. B in vs. 11), which was subsequently dropped.

74 EZRA STUDIES

42. Oepafain II Chron. 35:19. For D^n , "teraphim"— but

the Hebrew original of this passage is now lost; see no.
44. This transliteration is used by others than Theo-
dotion.

43. 6d)&a0a (most MSS, including all the uncials, 6co\a6a; an

early blunder, A for A) Neh. 12:27. For firrin ,
"thanksgivings." (L: (ev) ayaXXidaei.)

44. /caSrjo-eLfji (? So cod. 121; the others have /capeaei^11) II

Chron. 35:19. For DMTJp, "temple-prostitutes." The
passage, which is a highly important one for the history
of our Hebrew text, is found neither in MT nor in
I Esdras. See below, p. 88. Observe that Theodotion
has the transliteration /ca^rjaei/ji in Judg. 5:21.

45. Ke^ovpr) I Chron. 28:17; Ezr. 1:10; 8:27. For

"cups."

46. KoOvvoi Ezr. 2:69. For m'])Tti, "robes." (L: o-roXa? iepa-

rt/ca?.) See also no. 69.

47. \afjL(fji)aave II Chron. 22:1. All our Greek texts are cor

rupt here. For nsrtab, "for a raid."12 Some justifi
cation for Theodotion's transliteration here may be found
in the ambiguity of the expression, which I believe to have
been mistranslated by every modern scholar as well as
in the ancient versions. This strange word, Xa/Lt(ft)aaz/e,
immediately following ol "A/9a/3e?, was of course supposed
to be a proper name, and was accordingly made, by some
copyist, to end with a ?. aka^aaves became aXa/u-afoz/e?,
a form attested by several MSS. A and B have [01
"Apa/Bes ot] aXt/iafo^ei?.13 (L: teal rwv AfJia^oviei/Ji ev ry
7rapejji^o\7h a characteristic specimen of the crimes com
mitted by this recension.)

UThe Greek letters 8 and p are frequently confused by scribes; some other examples
will be given in the sequel. There is therefore room for doubt as to the original form of
this^transliteration. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, on II Chron. 35:19, prints: u/capa(i)<ret/iA =
(sic) ; but in this he is certainly mistaken.

12 Cf. tflSfc, "for war," " to give battle," the use of the verb HDll, "to attack,"
in Ps. 53:6; I Mace. 5: 49 f., etc., and of rCTO in II Chron. 18: 33= I Kings 22:34, etc.

13 Hence in 14:14 (15) the g'oss, TOV? 'A/ma^oveZs (!), derived solely from the pas
sage 22:1, has come into the Greek text (all recensions). Benzinger, Commentary on
Chron., would emend the Hebrew text of 14:13f. accordingly. But there is no excuse for
"emending;" the context shows, as plainly as a context can show anything, that Ql^ is
right as it stands. The connection between the two passages would be made by any reader ;
the enemies of Israel in both cases are the Philistines and the neighboring Arabs.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 75

48. fAavaa II Chron. 7:7; Neh. 13:5, 9. For HTOJ , "meal

offering." (L substitutes in each case the word Ovcria.)
Observe that in Dan. 2:46 Theodotion has substituted
this transliteration for the older translation Ova-ias.

49. pavavai II Chron. 34: 22. For HDlZJ/p, "the second (district)."

50. peOaxafiei/jL (the correct reading in codd. 56, 121) I Chron.

21:20. For D^^n/J, "hiding themselves." (L:7ropev-
o/^eVou?, a reading which evidently originated in a cor
ruption of the KpvfBofjLevoi which most MSS have here.)

51. p€0o)c<rcip Ezr. 2:62. For D^TDrPtYa , "listed by geneal

ogy." (L: yeveaXoyovvres.}

52. fjiere/Saae (?) I Chron. 18:8. For nrGEE, "fromTibhat"

(name of a city). It is evident from the way in which
the following word is translated that Theodotion did not
regard this as a proper name. L has etc TT)? ra/3aa#,
translating the preposition; and this translation (evi
dently secondary) has also found its way into the Egyp
tian text: A, e/c rr)? /xare/3e0; B, etc r?}? /Ltera/3r;%a9.u

53. iJLexwvO II Chron. 4:14, twice. For tYiriM , "bases."

Observe that Theodotion gives us this same translitera
tion in Jer. 27:19 (Greek 34:15).

54. vaxaXrj I Chron. 11:32. For ^H? , "wadys"(?).

55. o0aX II Chron. 27:3; 33:14; Neh. 3:26, 27; 11:21. For

bs'9(n), the "hill" in Jerusalem.

56. aafiaxtoQ II Chron. 4:12; only in the cursives 56 and 121;

see below, p. 80. For rtanir , "nets."

57. cra^coA (? A <m%<wz/, B o"a%w%. The reading of the cod.

Basiliano-Vaticanus, N [XI in H. and P.] is given as
ao-ifii/Bao-axtoX ( ! ) ; the first part of this being probably
the proper name A<7e/3eta, from the beginning of vs. 19?)
Ezr. 8:18. For bjir, "prudence." (L has [avrjp]avv€Tos.)

58. aepo-epwO II Chron. 3:16. For rVn'vZh'i , "chains." (L:

59. (ToofM I Chron. 29:2. ForDJTa:, name of a stone. (L:

[ \idov <? ] oVu^o? . )

60. aa)(f>ap I Chron. 15:28. For ^2V£ , "trumpet."

61. (T(0<t)[e]peL}jL I Chron. 2:55; in the L text only; see below.

For D'nslO, "scribes."

i* It is a mistake to suppose that the \ of this form is the transliteration of fl • It is
merely one of the customary blunders of codex B. jmere/Saafl was miswritten /xera|3^ad (\ for
a, several other examples are given in the sequel), and so on.

76 EZRA STUDIES

62. retf^et/u II Chron. 9:21; in the L text only; see below. For

D^Pl, "peacocks."

63. vnaafyecod I Chron. 2:53. For rrinBEEl , "and the families

(of)." The same word is translated in vs. 55, just
below — the context there being so plain as to leave even
Theodotion no room for doubt! (The L text has acci
dentally lost the first words of vs. 53; see Nos. 14 and 38.
Both A and B are corrupt here.)

64. c£ao-e% II Chron. 30:1, and often. For HC3 , "passover."

The old Greek version of the Chronicler's history had
TracT^a; see II Chron. 35:1, 6-13, 16-18, in I Esdras
(1:1, 6ff., 16-19). The large number of occurrences of
the word in these two chapters of the Theodotion version
was what kept it from being changed, even in the L
recension. See also above, p. 67, note.

65. (f>ea (?) Neb. 5:14, 15, 18; in the Egyptian text only.

For Jins , "governor." The word occurs four times in
these three verses, and appears at first sight to have been
transliterated three times and translated once. This
would be a truly Theodotionic proceeding; still, it is
perhaps more likely that the word was originally translit
erated in all four cases. At present, through accidental
corruption and attempted correction, the forms originally
written have been nearly obliterated ; only close scrutiny
can find the trace of them. The Egyptian text of the
verses in question now reads: U'ATTO TT}? rj/mepas 77? eve-
reCKaro ftot elvai et? dp%ovra avrwv (D™3) .... eya* ical
ol aSe\(f)OL fjiov (Biav avrwv (»~lM5»"i Dnb) OVK ecfrayov, 15 /cal
ra<? /3ta? ( JYirOiTI ) T^ Trpami? a? Trpb ejjLov e(3dpvvav e?r'

aUTOU?, tf.T.X 18 . . . . KOI (7VV TOUTOi? UpTOVS TT}<?

/3ta? (nns»l Dnb) ov/c l^rrjcra. The Greek yields in
each of these clauses a passable sense, the word /3ia
meaning "extortion" or "fruit of extortion." But the
latter phrase would be a singularly free rendering ( !) even
of riri3»l Drt, especially for Theodotion; and at the
beginning of vs. 15 and the end of vs. 18 it is quite
plain that /3ta stands simply as the equivalent of fins ,15
Beyond question, Theodotion wrote faa in these three

15 So it is given, in fact, in both Schleusner and Tromm. Klostermann, among modern
scholars, has recognized the fact of a transliteration.

TEXTUAL CKITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZKA-NEHEMIAH 77

cases (at least) ; by one of the most common of scribal
errors this became fiea ; the rest followed naturally. The
original readings were presumably: in vs. 14, ap-rov rov
</>ea, instead of /3iav avrwv,™ vs. 15, <$>ea>6 instead of /3m?;
vs. 18, aprov rov <£ea instead of aprov TT)? /3ia?. (The L
text has substituted translations in each of the three
cases: aprov TT}? yye/jLovias in vss. 14 and 18, and a/cr^oi/re?
in vs. 15.)

66. xa/uam/u- Ezr. 8:27. The source of this is the word

D"Dffl"nb (MT. D^jTJtfb), "in drachmas," which was
divided D"TO3 *P^ an(i characteristically rendered et?
T7)v 6$bv ^a/jLavei/ji. (In cod. A this has been improved
to e. T. 6. Spaxfjicoveiv ; while in the L text the correction
has gone still farther, changing the last word to Spa^a? .)

67. xepovfieip II Chron. 3:8ff., and elsewhere. For D^PD ,

"cherubim." This transliteration is not peculiar to
Theodotion.

68. X€XXaP (?) I Chron. 16:3; only in the L text, which reads

^eX^ap, presumably because of a common scribal error in
the Greek. For 133, "loaf." A and B have aprov.
Cf. No. 18, where the same word (meaning "circuit"),
written with the article, is transliterated by a%e%ap.

69. %o0a>z/a><9 Neh. 7:70, 72. For ntrO , "robes." Very likely

the tcoOwvoi (?) of Ezr. 2:69 (above, No. 46) originated
in this same transliteration. (L, in all three cases,

70. %&>%>e0 (-0)0?) II Chron. 4:12 (twice), 13. For
"capitals."

The regularity with which these words are distributed through
the history is worthy of notice. Leaving out of account the repe
tition of such frequently used words as c^acre^ and %e/oou/3ei/Li, the
number of occurrences in I Chron. is 28; in II Chron. 32; in
Ezra 16 ; and in Neh. 30.

To those who have examined Theodotion's transliterations in
connection with the other extant traces of his work, this list will
be conclusive. The large number of these words, and their charac
teristics in detail, added to the facts which have already been noticed,
place the matter quite beyond the reach of doubt. It is to be
remarked also that a few of the words in the list are already known

16 How easy the corruption of aprov to aurtoi/ would be may be seen from vs. 15, where
codex A has aurots for aproi?.

78 EZRA STUDIES

from other sources to have been used by this translator ; such are
Ka§7](T€ifJL, navaa, ^e^wvwO ', c/>ao-e%, and probably ye&Sovp. To make
the demonstration still more complete, it is further to be observed
that in the few points of contact between the Theodotion element
in Daniel and our Greek translation of the Chronicler's work there
are some striking instances of identical usage. One of these is
the case of the word pavaa, noticed above. Another is the use of
Xn/r (a favorite word with Theodotion) as the rendering of ZP2/J ;
found only in II Ohron. 32:30; 33:14; Dan. 8:5; in the last-
named passage substituted for the CLTTO Svcrpwv of the older version,
which certainly needed 110 correction! Equally striking is the
substitution of evaSiai, as the rendering of "prnrP3 , in Ezr. 6:10
and Dan. 2:46; in both cases correcting the o-TroV&u of the older
translation. Notice also the peculiar rendering airo /-te/jou? for
r\£p",2 , only in Dan. 1 : 2 and Neh. 7:70; the use of the verb o-vveri-
£eiv, and that of the noun ey/caivia. Undoubtedly other examples
of the kind can be found; I have made no thorough search.

In the case of gentilic names, it is Theodotion's custom to
transliterate exactly, instead of using the Greek adjective endings.
The latter, however, have been substituted later in a good many
instances, sometimes in the Egyptian text and very often in L.
Thus, in Neh. 2:19 the original rendering had o Apwvei, 6 A/x-
/zo>m, and o Apa/3ei; where L offers 6 'fl/>a>z/m??, 6 'A/A/x&wtri;?,
and 6 "A/oa-\/r. An example of a passage in which nearly all the
Greek texts have made the change is Ezr. 3:7, where for "Sidon-
ians and Tyrians" cod. 121 has ^iSavip and ^copi/jL (probably
almost exactly what Theodotion wrote) ; B has 'S.rjSafieiv and
2o)/3«z>; all the other MSS have substituted the Greek adjective
forms. Many other instances of the kind could be given.

In some cases where Theodotion was in doubt whether the
word before him was a gentilic name or not, he cautiously repro
duced the Hebrew article by the Greek a. In such cases it was
inevitable that those who cared for the Greek text should often
have taken the further step of substituting the Greek article.
For example, in Ezr. 2:57 Theodotion wrote viol <&aa-(e)pa6 (or
^a^epaO ?) aaejSweLfjL (D^H^H), as is attested by the Egyptian
Greek tradition. But in the L text we find viol Qa/cepaO TWV
2a/3o>et/-i. Of course accidental corruption of these unfamiliar
forms took place from time to time. Thus, in I Chron. 18:17
TOV XepTjOi was Theodotion's rendering. I was miswritten for X,

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 79

as occasionally elsewhere, and in a cursive manuscript 6 became
ft>, as in a great many other places. Hence the r&v Zepecov in both
L and the ordinary Egyptian text (but not in A).

It remains to be said in general, regarding Theodotion's trans
literations (and especially those of ordinary nouns), that in all
probability some of them, and perhaps a considerable number,
have been lost. Of course, in a version which came into common
use as a part of the Greek Bible, these uncouth words were very
soon felt to be seriously disturbing, especially in the many cases
where the Hebrew word and its meaning were perfectly well
known. We should therefore suppose that the process of remov
ing these peculiar creations of Theodotion would have begun
almost immediately. We can see the process going on in the
texts which are known to us. In the Lagarde recension, it is the
rule (not systematically carried through, to be sure) that these
transliterations are replaced by translations; and we can see the
same tendency actively at work even in the most conservative
group of manuscripts. Observe, for example, what has taken
place in I Chron. 28:17, where the unusual word ("1)tall3D occurs
six times. The L recension (!) has preserved Theodotion's tcecf)-
(f)ovp(r)) in three places; cod. A has it once ; cod. B has dropped
it altogether. Similarly, in Ezr. 7:22 /3aOo)v "baths" (liquid
measure) has been replaced in B by aTroOrjicwv, but not in A; in Ezr.
2:69 fcoOavoi (so B) becomes in A %£T<wm?. Or to take the case
of a still more common word: in I Chron. 11:34 DlZJn ^DD, is

• • T

rendered by Theodotion /3ev(v)ai acra/z; this becomes in A and L
(but not in tf B) viol a'. Many other examples might be given.17
It is reasonable to suppose that this process had already begun
before the period represented by the earliest manuscript testi
mony which we have. A few of the rejected words, afte'r having
been actually dropped from all the texts in common use, were
preserved in stray cursives, or rescued again by the L recension
(thanks to its conflating tendency).18 An excellent example is

17 In I Chron. 26:16 it seems to be the case that A has preserved the original rendering,
TU> 2e</uei/u., for D^DTUb , while the improvement ets Sevrepov (from a late reading Q^UTUb )
has been adopted not only by the MSS of the L recension but also by the most of the "Egyp
tian " MSS, including B. The supposition that A's is the corrected text here would be far
less plausible, judging from what has taken place elsewhere in the MSS of these books.
L's double rendering here contains an obvious correction according to MT, Q^SlOb being
translated by rot? Trpoflupois.

18 Hence, presumably, the presence of the word epaAet/u, in I Chron. 9:18, only in L.
Whence it comes I do not know, but it is probably a corrupt form of one of Theodotion's
transliterations. The eca is pretty certainly a reproduction of the HSH which stands here

80 EZRA STUDIES

the rendering of the phrase VT3n "^123 "valley gate" in Neh.
2:15. Here the L text presents both /cal TJ/JLTJV Iv rfj 7rv\7j TT)?
(frdpayyos and /cal &iri\6ov Sia T?}? TruX??? yai, the position of the
latter clause showing that in this recension it was inserted
later. Something very similar has taken place in II Chron.
26:9, where (in the L text) ayycu and TT)? ^dpayyos form a
doublet, though in this case it is the translation which seems
to be secondary. No one but Theodotion would be likely to
transliterate in such a case as this; and that it was actually he
that did it appears to be rendered certain by Neh. 3:13, where L
gives for the same phrase only rrjv TrtXrjv <yai. But in all three
of these passages the word yai has quite disappeared from the
manuscripts of the standard text ! A case in which the L text has
retained a transliteration which has already been dropped by all
the MSS of the "Egyptian" group, with the single exception of
codex 121, is the word a-cofapeifj,™ I Chron. 2:55. In the ordinary
text it has been rendered by ^pa^^arewv. Another example is
the word X€XXaPi I Chron. 16:3. Other words of this nature
which have narrowly missed oblivion are r€/c%et/Lt, II Chron. 9:21,
preserved in L; ayowyei/ji, II Chron. 9:10, found in one L MS,
93, and (in the form 701^76^) in the cursives 56 and 121; and
o-a/3a%o>0, II Chron. 4:12, preserved only by 56 and 121. These
words are given by Field in his list (loc. cit., pp. xlf. ) as of
"anonymous" origin; but it must now be evident, I think, that
they are survivals from Theodotion's version.

In other parts of the Old Testament, moreover, traces of Theo
dotion's transliteration, hitherto unrecognized as his, are undoubt
edly to be found. His version must have been felt to be an
indispensable one, meeting a greater variety of needs than any
other, and its influence upon the standard Greek text was probably
much greater than we ordinarily suppose. Its readings must
have supplanted the other renderings in many places,20 and as an
inevitable result, the ascription of "Theodotion" readings to
" LXX," and vice versa, was not infrequent. This happened even in

in the Hebrew; the remainder may be due to dittographyof some sort, involving the follow
ing ev. No one of the commentators on Chronicles appears to have noticed it.

)9 It appears in various forms: o-w^ijpci/u. in 93, 108, and 121; o-axjupeiju,, in 19; o-umepiiu, in
the retransliteration from an Armenian codex given in H. & P. Lagarde edits <ruxj>pei/u..

20 To take a single example from the Prophets — the one which happens to occur to me
at the moment: in Isa. 44:8 we can see the process at work ; the phrase M^e Tr\ava<rOe has
been taken over from Theod. into the text of cod. B, but is not in the older text of this verse
represented by codd. AtfQ, etc. Fortunately the Hexaplar MSS here make the matter
perfectly plain.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 81

the case of transliterations, passages containing them having been
taken over into the current version at an early date, particularly
in the books Sam.— Kings, in which the textual tradition made so
many difficulties. One example of the kind has already been
given; see above, on yeSSovp. Precisely similar in their history,
as I believe, are the four other renderings given by Field (loc.
ci/., p. xlii) as cases in which "LXX" transliterates while
Theodotion translates. One of these, for example, is II Sam. 17:19
tVlBVl, rendered "LXX apafywO, Theod. TraXatfa?." Another is
II Kings 16:17 MIDDE, rendered "LXX ^ex^vcoB, Theod. VTTO-
<7Tr)pfyfjLaTa." See the note on this latter word in the list above.
From the evidence which we already have, it seems to me that we
are fully justified in reversing these ascriptions, assuming that in
these cases, at least, the later version had contaminated the earlier.
The important question, whether in preparing his version of
the Chronicler's history Theodotion was revising an older trans
lation, or not, should probably be answered in the negative. We
have as our guide his proceeding in the case of Daniel ; and what
he does there is to retain to a remarkable degree the wording of
his predecessor, in spite of extensive alterations in the form of the
text. A comparison of I Esdras with the corresponding part of
Theodotion does not show any such close resemblance. The coin
cidences of rendering seem to be only such as would be expected
in two translations of the same Hebrew text, while the differences
are so many and so great as to argue strongly against any depend
ence upon, or even acquaintance with, the older version.21 We
know of no translation of Chr.-Ezr.-Neh. before the time of Theo
dotion, other than the one represented by our I Esdras, and it is
not likely that there was another. Our last witness to the exist
ence of this version in its completeness comes from Joseph us.
After his day, so far as I am aware, we meet with it only in the
"I Esdras" fragment. Soon after the beginning of the Christian
era, in all probability, the old Greek version of the Chronicler's
history disappeared from the face of the earth, with the exception
of the one fragment which happened to be rescued from a single
codex (see above, p. 36). This fragment may have escaped
Theodotion's notice altogether, or he may not have thought it of
importance for his purpose. At all events, when he put forth his

21 Why, to take a single instance, should Theodotion have rendered the word
(MT XDntU^) in Ezr. 5:3 by the senseless \oprjyiav, if he had known that it had already
been rendered (I Esdr. 6:4) by the obviously suitable oTe'-yrjv ?

82 EZKA STUDIES

own translation, it had a clear field ; and as a matter of course, it
was soon adopted as apart of "the Septuagint" and its authorship
was quite forgotten. If it is indeed an independent translation
of these books, as I believe, it is doubly important as the one great
example of the methods of this interpreter, this time not a mere
reviser, but free to work in his own way.

III. THE TWO MAIN TYPES OF THE TEXT

1. First Esdras

I have described briefly in one of the preceding essays (above,
pp. 31-36) the two differing "editions" of the Chronicler's
history which are known to us, giving some account of their origin.
Since an interval of 300 years lay between them, and the later
edition was, generally speaking, independent of the former one,
the comparison of them is obviously a matter of great importance
for purposes of textual criticism. But before they can be thus
used in any satisfactory way, it is necessary to know to a consid
erable extent the history of their transmission ; the state of preser
vation of the various texts ; the age, the character, and the trust
worthiness of the translations; the relative excellence and mutual
relations of manuscripts. The following observations will serve
as a beginning.

The old Greek translation of Chron. -Ezr.-Neh. was made not
long before the middle of the second century B. c. The direct
evidence of this is found in the quotation from the Greek historian
Eupolemus, in a work composed about 150 B. c. (see Schtirer,
Geschichte*, III, 351 f .). The historian is telling of the building of
Solomon's temple, and quotes from the letter of Hiram, king of
Tyre, in the form of it which is found only in II Chron., chap. 2.
The text of the passage, corresponding to II Chron. 2:12ff., is
given in Swete's Introduction, p. 370, and reads as follows:
euXo777T05 o #eo? o? rov ovpavov /cal rrjv <yrjv eKTicrev, o? etXero avdpto-
TTOV 'xprjffrbv ere ^prjo-rov avSpds .... /cal dp^ire/crovd GOI CLTT-
€crra\/ca avOptoirov^vpiov etc /jLrjrpbs 'lovSoua? etc TT}? <f)V\r)S Adv. Here
is, beyond all question, a somewhat free citation from a Greek
version of Chronicles. There is every reason to believe, and no
reason to doubt, that this translation was the same one of which a
part has survived in the "I Esdras" fragment.22 All the evidence

22 It might seem useless to attempt to argue from the wording of so free a citation as
this one evidently is. But the opening phrase, " Blessed be the God who made heaven and

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 83

which we have seems to show that the I Esdras translation was
made as early as the second century B. c. Some of the indications
of this nature have already been mentioned ; others will appear in
the sequel.

The home of the translation may well have been Egypt.
There is one interesting fact, at least, which seems to show that
the translator lived among people to whom the geography and
history of Syria were somewhat unfamiliar. The technical term
*nn ^23? (Aram, mm nay), "the district beyond (west of) the
river (Euphrates)," is in every instance — 14 times in all — ren
dered by Kofarj ^vpi'a /cal <&OIVIKT), "Coele-Syria and Phoenicia,"
a rendering which occurs nowhere else.23 The term "beyond the
river" was one which had long been familiar throughout Palestine
and Syria, and Theodotion's rendering, irepav rov Trora/LtoO, would
have been understood anywhere between Judea and Persia. But
in Egypt the phrase was not so well known.

From the materials which we have, we are well able to judge
as to the character of the translation. It is a faithful rendering,
of the kind to which we are accustomed in the older parts of the
Greek Old Testament. The translator has a wide knowledge of

Greek, uses a large vocabulary, and very often chooses Greek
idioms instead of simply copying the Semitic forms of speech. In
rendering two verbs connected by "and," for example, he frequently
employs the participle for one of the two, where Theodotion and
his kind would follow the original. On the other hand, he generally
sticks desperately to a corrupt text, hesitating at no nonsense in

earth," seems to have been transferred verbatim, and it is at least interesting to observe that
we have here one of the characteristic marks of difference between the rendering of Theodo
tion and that of the old Greek version. Theodotion has the phrase before him in this passage
and in Neh. 9:6, and both times renders by en-ot^o-ei/ (Heb. JllSJ^)- In I Esdr., the words are
found only in 6: 12, and the rendering there, as here, is by KTi£eiv (a form of the Aramaic
verb "O37 being read).

23 It is important to observe that this is the old and official terminology used by the
Greek historians and geographers from the fourth century onward. " Coele-Syria and
Phoenicia," or even " Coele-Syria " alone, included the whole Syrian province west
of the Euphratus, i.e., exactly ^HDH 1^37 » An Alexadrian translator of the
second century B. c. would have been sure to use it; see II Mace. 3:5, 8; 4:4 fora
striking illustration; and cf. also I Mace. 10:69, and the numerous passages in Polybius
cited by Holscher, "Palastina in der persischen und hellenistischen Zeit," in Sieglin's
Quellen und Forschungen zur alien Geschichte und Geographic, Heft 5 (1903), pp. 7 f. Notice
also that "Coele-Syria and Phoenicia" is the term used in the petition of Onias to Ptolemy
Philometor, Josephus, Antt., xiii, 3, 1. This terminology went out of general use before the
beginning of the Christian era. Strabo, xvi, 2, 2, notes that according to a nomenclature
which some (ei/ioi 6e) had used, "Coele-Syria" included the territory of the Jews, Edomites,
and Philistines. His testimony shows that in the last century B. c. and thereafter " Coele-
Syria" was ordinarily applied only to the district between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon.
Thus Holscher, p. 12. His conclusion is the same one which I had myself reached.

84 EZRA STUDIES

"translating" it. His performances in really difficult places—
and in many that are not difficult at all — are like those of a modern
schoolboy, and we may expect to find at least a few stupid blun
ders (so they seem to us) on every page. This is fortunate, for
it enables us, here as elsewhere, to see what Semitic words and
phrases the Greek was trying to render. One who is thoroughly
familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic and also with the habits of
these translators will generally be able to see what text lay behind
this version — after he has once determined the original form of
the Greek.

The Semitic text thus rendered seems to have been not partic
ularly good, but one which had suffered considerably from care
less copyists. In many cases, indeed, its readings are manifestly
superior to those of our massoretic text, and there is no place in
which its help can safely be dispensed with; but on the whole,
the type of text which it represents is inferior to that represented
by our canonical books. Aside from all the accidental corruption
which it has suffered through careless transmission, it seems now
and then to have been deliberately "revised," as, for example, in
the opening verses of the section dealing with the official corre
spondence in the time of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, I Esdr. 2:15.
Wherever the probabilities are otherwise evenly balanced, in the
conflict of I Esdras readings with those of our canonical recension,
the latter has the presumption in its favor. Some instances of the
occasional wide divergence of the I Esdras text from that which
later became the standard will be given below.

Several scholars have called attention to a certain resemblance
between the Greek of I Esdras and that of the old ("LXX")
version of Daniel. See Swete's Introduction, pp. 48 f., and
Lupton's preface to his First Esdras, in the Speaker's Commen
tary. Most noticeable is the occurrence of the same phrase, teal
aTrrjpeicraTO avra ev TOJ eiScoXicp avrov, in both I Esdr. 2 : 9
and Dan. 1:2, as has been observed. I add one or two other note
worthy examples.24 The phrase "his house shall be made a rub
bish-heap COT)," which occurs in Ezr. 6:11; Dan. 2:5; 3:29,
is interpreted by the old version in all three places to mean "his
house shall be confiscated." In I Esdr. 6:31 the rendering
is: teal ra vTrdp^ovra avrov elvai /3ao-tXt/ea, and in Dan. 2:5: /cal

2*1 give only those which I happen to have noticed and remembered; I have made no
search for them.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHKONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 85

V/JLWV ra vTrdp^ovra et? TO (3a(Ti\iic6v. In Dan. 3 : 96
he writes: rj olicia aurov fyiJLev0ija-eTai, which means the same.20
Again, in Dan. 3:2 we have in the old version (but not in Theo-
dotion) the same list of officers, o-arpaTra?, arpar^yov^^ T07rdp%a$
KOI uTrarot/?, which appears in the same order in I Esdr. 3: 14;
as also, lacking the last member, in 3:2. Since the Greek words
are by no means the settled equivalents of the Aramaic terms, this
coincidence can hardly be accidental. Notice also the use of the
word pawd/cr}?, "golden chain," in I Esdr. 3:6; Dan. 5:7, 29;
the frequent occurrence of /jLeyiardveSj "magnates," in both I Esdras
and Daniel; the phrase eTrofycre So^v fj.eyd\r]v, I Esdr. 3:1;
Dan. 5:1 (not in Theodotion) . In Swete's list (Introduction,
pp. 310 f.) of the unusual Greek words which are found in certain
books of the Old Testament, the following also are mentioned as
occurring in both I Esdras and the old translation of Daniel:
ava7r\r)p(0(Ti<$, Soy/JLari^eiv, fjLeyaXeidrrjS , Treidap^eiv,

These instances seem to render one of two conclusions certain :
either the old Greek translation of the Chronicler's history strongly
influenced that of the book of Daniel; or else both were the work
of one and the same translator.26 The latter is the more probable
supposition; notice, for instance, how the two passages Dan. 2:5;
3:29, compared with I Esdr. 6:31, prove that the translator
worked independently, and was not simply following an older
version.

It is not likely that this translation ever circulated widely.
The Chronicler's history in its original Semitic form seems to
have been little known, and was certainly very little esteemed, in
any part of the Jewish world for two or three centuries after the
date of its composition.27 From the time when the Story of the
Youths was seen to be secondary, and the abridged recension made
its appearance, the older, unabridged texts and versions lost ground ;

25 So far as I know, the important testimony which these translations (or mistranslations)
give to the existence of a Syro-Palestinian root blDi corresponding to the Arabic JLj, JLo,
4> take, obtain," has never been noticed. It is the same root whose verb (53"1 •, jussive) occurs
in the last line of the Tabnit inscription, as I hope to show more fully elsewhere.

26 In tliat case, the translation of Daniel was probably made soon after the publication
of the original, inasmuch as the Chronicler's history was translated before the middle of the
second century B. c. An early date for the old Greek Daniel is also rendered probable by the
Greek version of I Mace. 1:54, in which dependence on the Greek translation of Daniel is
certain, as well as the fact that the words quoted had long been familiar.

27 Very likely its true character was well understood, at the first. If that were the case,
it would not be surprising that even its one valuable part, the story of Nehemiah, should
have made little impression.

86 EZRA STUDIES

and finally, when the official text was created, this old Greek ver
sion, already near to extinction, passed out of sight. There is no
evidence that any secondary version was ever made from it, in its
entire state, and we know it only from the fragment which survived
under the name "First Esdras." The history of the transmission
of this fragment, in manuscripts and versions, is unlike that of any
other part of the Greek Old Testament, though the old Greek
Daniel offers a close parallel in many respects. It has, of course,
been far less influenced, in its transmission, by the Hebrew- Aramaic
text than its canonical fellows. Their presence beside it has gen
erally saved it from editorial "correction" since the establishment
of a standard text, and it is not at all likely to have suffered from
such correction before that time. Accordingly, the Hebrew-
Aramaic that can be shown to lie behind our I Esdras may gen
erally be accepted as representing a text which existed before the
middle of the second century B. c. On the other hand, there is
evidence that the Greek text of this translation was somewhat
carelessly handled during the first centuries of its existence, and
it is easy to be too confident in arguing from the Greek to the
Semitic. In dealing with the plus and minus of I Esdras, espe
cially, great caution is necessary.28 Moreover, ever since "First
Esdras" and "Second Esdras" were first placed side by side in
manuscripts of the Greek Bible, the danger of contamination, in
either direction, has been present ; it is remarkable, indeed, that
the better types of text should show so little evidence of such cor
ruption. It is only in the L text (see below) that this is a serious
matter; there, the contamination of I Esdras has gone so far as
to render the text all but useless for critical purposes.

The text of I Esdras, like that of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah,
is known to us in two principal recensions, which will be described
below. The one of these may conveniently be called "Egyptian,"
and the other "Syro-Palestinian." Of the secondary versions
made from the I Esdras Greek, the Syriac, the Ethiopic, and the
Latin are the only ones requiring mention here. The Syriac, made

28 Not a few of the German scholars who have dealt with I Esdras have relied on the
text of Fritzsche (Libri Vet. Test, apocry phi graece, 1871). But Fritzsche's eclectic text is
built on no sound principles, and his apparatus is untrustworthy at every point. Those
very marks — including not only misspellings but also erratic readings — which give the
surest critical guidance are habitually omitted by him; while many of the readings of
codices A, B, J$, and others, which he fails to record at all are beyond question the original
ones. Those who read the Greek Apocrypha for pastime will find Fritzsche's text compara
tively smooth and agreeable; but those who are engaged in exact studies can make no use
of it.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 87

by Paul of Telia, and the Ethiopic represent the Egyptian recen
sion, and are of considerable value; the Latin, derived from a
Syrian text, has also some critical importance. These will receive
further mention in the sequel.

2. The Standard Text of the Second Century A. D.

The text of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah which was taken as the
official one seems to have been carefully selected. It was one from
which the Story of the Youths had been cut out, and in which the
three wandering chapters of the Ezra narrative were allowed to
remain in the book of Nehemiah (above, pp. 30 ff.). It was
presumably one which bore evidence of being more trustworthy in
details than the most of its fellows. So far as we are able to judge,
it was, indeed, comparatively "sound," especially in the book of
Ezra-Nehemiah; though differing considerably from what the
Chronicler originally, wrote. The separation of Ezra-Nehemiah
from Chronicles had either taken place already, or else was accom
plished at this time. When Theodotion made his translation, the
division was already effected.

As witnesses to the readings of this "standard" recension we
have: (1) the massoretic text; (2) the Greek of Theodotion;
(3) the Latin of Jerome. We have the great good fortune to
know the habits of each of these two translators, and can thus
reason from version to original with an assurance which would not
otherwise be possible. As Jerome made his translation near the
end of the fourth century, its value for text-critical purposes is
very small; it almost everywhere agrees verbatim with our mas
soretic text. Theodotion's Greek, on the other hand, bears inter
esting witness to the fact that the massoretic text is by no means
identical with the "standard" text of the second century A. D.
The manner in which even an official recension can become cor
rupted, even within a short time, is well illustrated here. The
text rendered by Theodotion has suffered many accidental changes,
and a few which look like deliberate revision ; so also has that of
the massoretes. One example of the kind has already been pointed
out (above, p. 73); in I Chron. 28:20, Theodotion's Hebrew
contained a passage of considerable length which has been lost,
by a mere copyist's error, from our MT.

Another instance, and one of especial interest, is the long pas
sage which in our Greek Bible is appended to II Chron. 35:19

88 EZRA STUDIES

(see above, p. 74). Examination shows29 that this was taken
bodily from II Kings 23 : 24-27 ; but no one seems to have observed
that the borrowing did not take place in the Greek ver
sion, but in the Hebrew original. Theodotion had all this
before him, in the text which he rendered; moreover, the word
D^jnp , which he transliterated by /caSr/o-e^(?), is not attested in
II Kings 23:24 by MT or any version, though it appears to be
the older reading as contrasted with the D"WpT2 which is given
there. What adds materially to the interest of the case is the
fact that the old Greek version bears witness to still another
Hebrew text at this point. The passage in I Esdras (1:21 ff.)
reads as follows: [21/ou wpOa^Orj ra epja 'Icoaeiov evtomov rov /cvpiov
avrov ev /capSia rr\r)pei evaefteias. ~* ical ra tear* avrov be avaje-
ryparrrei ev rot? e^rrpocrdev ^/soVot?, Trepl .... rwv r^/jiaprTjKorcov KOI
^aelSrjKorcov et? rov /cvpiov rrapa rrav edvos KOI (Bacn\eiav, /cal e\V7T7j-
aav avrov ev alcr0r)(rei' teal ol \dyoi rov /cvpiov avecrrrfcrav errl
'laparfX. 23Kat fjiera rracrav rrjv rrpd^tv ravrrjv 'Itwcreiov] <7vve/3rj
<&apaa) (Baai\ea «T\., the end of the bracketed section being the
point at which agreement with the other texts begins. The first
glance at this Greek version makes the whole matter plain. We
have here what the Chronicler himself originally wrote,
but in mutilated form, a passage of some length having been lost
from the Hebrew by accident at the point where I have
inserted the four periods. The Greek translator rendered as well as
he could ; but the passage was hopelessly spoiled, and indeed made
even worse than useless, for as it now reads it seems to class Josiah
among the most wicked of kings ! Hence the bold measure of
cutting out the entire passage from Hebrew texts. In the
copy which lay before Theodotion this had been done, and the
resulting gap had been filled from II Kings. In our massoretic
text the excision has been made and the gap left unfilled; but
certain tell-tale words are added which not only testify eloquently
to the fact of the lacuna, but even hint at the nature of the miss
ing passage. When our Hebrew text proceeds (vs. 30) :

"ran D"nsa ^~2 ISD rib? [rrnn ns irra&r yon nir

comparison with the two Greek versions shows beyond all ques
tion what was meant by the words: "After all this work which
Josiah did in setting the temple in order" The allusion is to

291 am not sure to whom it shows anything. Our modern commentators, whether on
Chronicles or Esdras, seem to have failed to notice the matter.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 89

some such passage as the one translated by Theodotion, which
immediately preceded these words. And finally, it is to be
observed that the "standard text" of the second century A. D. must
either have been identical here with Theodotion's, or else have
resembled the fragmentary one preserved in I Esdras. The
phenomena can be explained on either supposition, but the latter
is evidently the more probable one.

A third example of these more important variations in the tra
dition is found in II Chron. 36:8, another passage in which we
are able to compare I Esdras. Here, after the statement that
'the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim are written in the book of Kings,'
Theodotion proceeds: [teal CKOifArjOr) 'Icoa/cel/A yuera T&V Trarepwv
airroO,30 ical erd(f)rj ev yav ofa ftera TWV Trarepcov airrou-] KOI e/3a-
(ii\evaev KT\. The bracketed passage is wanting in both MT
and I Esdras, but was certainly in the Hebrew text of
Chronicles which lay before Theodotion (see above,
p. 72). Whatever we may think of its origin — and especially,
of the statement regarding "the garden of Uzza" — the fact of its
existence ought at least to be made known in our commentaries
and "critical" editions of the Hebrew text.

Another example, of a somewhat different character. In the
list of returning exiles, found in I Esdr., chap. 5, Ezr., chap. 2,
Neh., chap. 7, there is one point at which the accidental omission
of two or more names is made especially easy by the proximity of
similar or nearly identical forms: »"Q3n Ayaffa and HJM Aya(3,
2p3? and 3tip(?). In I Esdr. 5:29 f. we have the passage in
what seems to be its original form, with the names A.<ya/3a, Atfou/3,
Oura, K^ra/3, A.ya/3. In Ezr. 2:46 the names Oura, KrjTa/3, are
wanting in all the texts known, and therefore presumably were
not found at this point in the official text of the second century
A. D., their loss being due to the carelessness of a copyist. In Neh.
7:48 the most of the Greek manuscripts, including codices A and
tf , contain all the names; in MT, and also in a few Greek codices,
including B, the last four names of those mentioned above
have fallen out accidentally for the obvious reason just given.
The names Ovra and K^rayS, therefore, which are now not repre
sented anywhere in the Hebrew Old Testament, were present in
the Hebrew rendered by Theodotion. It cannot be held that they

30 This clause is found also in II Kings 24:6; and it is customary in both Kings and
Chronicles to use this formula in speaking of any king who dies a natural death while
occupying the throne.

90 EZRA STUDIES

were inserted from I Esdras, in the Greek translation, because
(1) such an insertion is altogether unlikely; (2) if made, it
would certainly have been in Ezra, chap. 2, not in Neh., chap. 7;
(3) the only form attested by any I Esdras text is Krjra/3, while
in the Theodotion texts we have everywhere Krjrap. It is remark
able that our commentators and critics of the Hebrew text should
not notice the testimony of the Greek in Neh. 7:48. All, appar
ently, omit even to look at the footnote in Swete; codex B is
"the Septuagint."31

These illustrations will suffice. The "official" text differed in
some important particulars from that of our massoretes and also
from the text of Theodotion, although both were derived from it.
A satisfactory restoration of it is generally possible, however, by
the use of these two, with occasional aid from other sources. Of
course the numerous minor variations, due to the usual accidents
of transmission and defects of translation, are taken for granted.
Sometimes Theodotion, and sometimes MT, has preserved the
better reading. The latter deserves the preference, on the whole.
The restoration of Theodotion's Hebrew- Aramaic text is in theory
a comparatively easy matter, since we know how close a rendering
he was wont to make, and since, because of the late date of his
work and the nearness of our oldest manuscripts to his time, we
can put unusual confidence in the traditional Greek. In fact,
however, a good deal of close study is often needed in order to find
out what "the traditional Greek" is. And when it has once been
found, the danger of blundering in constructing from it a new
Semitic text is very great, even under these most favorable circum
stances.

IV. NOTES ON MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS

Fortunately, the history of the transmission of the three
"books," Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, is one and the same his
tory, generally speaking. They have stood side by side, from
the first, sharing the same fate, whether in translation or in man
uscript tradition. Especially in the Greek codices which contain
these books, it can be seen that they all, including I Esdras,
have come down to us through the same lines of descent. That
which is seen to be true of codex A, or of codex B, or of the

31 It is quite characteristic of the L recension that it should expunge these two names
both in I Esdras and in Nehemiah — since nothing in the Hebrew corresponds to
them !

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 91

grouping of certain cursives, in I Chronicles, for example, will be
found to hold good for I Esdras or Nehemiah. That which can
be proved regarding a translation, or a recension, in one part of
the history will be true, speaking broadly, in every other part.

1. The Superiority of the A Manuscripts to those of the B Group

Theodotion's translation of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. was not made
until (at least) the middle of the second century A. D. Our oldest
Greek codices date from a time only two or three centuries later
than this, and some one or more among them might easily have
been copied from manuscripts belonging to the translator's own
time. Moreover, these books were already a part of "Sacred
Scripture" at the time when the version was made, and the need
of a careful tradition of the Greek text was already beginning to
be keenly felt. We should therefore expect to find Theodotion's
Greek pretty well preserved, in general; and to be able to recog
nize in some manuscript, or group of manuscripts, a text closely
approximating to that which came from the translator's own
hands. And in fact, both of these expectations are realized.
Thanks to the multitude of proper names in every part of the
Chronicler's history, the grouping of manuscripts is relatively
easy; and because of Theodotion's many peculiar translitera
tions, which subsequent editors liked to get rid of, it is often
possible to distinguish at a glance the original reading from the
later one.

Among the Greek manuscripts, those which contain the L
text form a very conspicuous group by themselves. These are
the cursives 19, 93, 108, with the occasional addition of others.32
This peculiar recension will be described below, and may be
passed over here.

All the other manuscripts may be divided roughly into two
main groups. The one of these has for its constant members the
uncials B, tf, and N,33 the cursive 55 (almost an exact duplicate
of B) , and is supported by the Syro-Hexaplar and Ethiopic ver
sions. The other group is led by the uncial A, and may be said
to include all of the remaining cursives, though it must not be

32 1 use, of course, the notation of Holmes and Parsons, wherever the contrary is not
expressly stated.

33 The codex Basiliano-Vaticanus, numbered XI by Holmes and Parsons. It is hardly
correct to speak of this manuscript asa"constant" member of the group, to be sure, for
in Chronicles and I Esdras it seems to occupy a peculiar position; see below.

92 EZRA STUDIES

inferred from this that the group is homogeneous.34 The charac
teristic of the manuscripts and versions of the B group is the
remarkable fidelity with which they reproduce the archetype from
which they all were derived. They carry us back — and evidently
not very far back — to a single codex, whose multitudinous
errors, including even the most glaring blunders of copyists, are
everywhere faithfully repeated. Among these half-dozen wit
nesses, the best text is given by codex fc$ , so far as it is preserved ;
that of codex B is the worst. As for the MSS of the "A group,"
they present no such uniform type, but differ among themselves
after the usual manner of O. T. Greek MSS, though in relatively
slight degree. That is, we find in them just the variety which
we should expect to find in a group of codices derived from
Theodotion's translation. The best text in this group is that of
codex A.

The current (and, so far as I know, unchallenged) opinion as
to the best Greek text of the books Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehe-
miah is that expressed by Kittel, Bilcher der Chronik, p. 24,
middle: "B hat nun trotz vieler Schreibfehler doch im ganzen
den besseren Text, auch bei den Namen, wahrend A sich fast
durchweg Angleichung an den MT zu Schulden kommen lasst."
But this view is altogether mistaken. Codex A, in these books,
has not been conformed to MT ; and as for the misguided worship
of codex ,B, it has nowhere so little justification as here. B gen
erally yields an inferior text in the Old Testament, and in this
case it is at its very worst.

First, as to codex A. It makes the impression of being sur
prisingly "correct," as contrasted with B. It reads smoothly, as
a rule, stands generally pretty close to our massoretic Hebrew,
and (what is especially noticeable) does not give in its proper
names the monstrosities which are the rule in the other uncials,
but rather presents what appears to be a mere transliteration of
the MT forms. But this does not show, by any means, that A's
is a corrected text. We are not dealing here with the Penta
teuch, or the books of Samuel, or with a translation made in the
third century B. c. Theodotion had before him a Hebrew text
which very closely resembled our MT ; he rendered it
exactly, and transliterated very carefully; and we happen to

34 Certain subdivisions of this main group are obvious enough, but I pass them over
here as unimportant for my purposes.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 93

have in codex A a pretty old and unusually trustworthy copy of the
original version. That is all. The theory that A has been exten
sively corrected can be shown on every page and in every chapter
to be untenable. The codex contains a great many ancient errors
of which the correction is perfectly obvious, but the erroneous
readings have in almost all cases been allowed to stand. Take,
for example, the numerous transliterations described above (p.
69), where Theodotion dealt timidly with corrupted words which
were easily emendable, and which appear in their correct
form in MT. Any "edited" text would correct these forms—
as they are corrected in L, for example. But in A they remain
unchanged. A good illustration, again, from I Esdras is the
ancient corruption of the name "Megiddo," in 1:27, where the
original Greek reading MayeSSa)(v) was very early altered,
through accidents of a familiar type, to Meyae&Soos and MeraeS-
8ou?. Everyone knew what the correct reading was, and in L
(but not in A) it was of course substituted. Moreover, in the
part of I Esdras which was least of all subject to correction or
alteration, the Story of the Youths, the text of A shows the same
superiority to that of B as elsewhere. A typical example is fur
nished by the proper name 'ISov/jLaloi, "Edomites," in 4:45, 50.
In both places A gives it correctly, while B has in the first
instance 'lou&uot, and in the second XaX&uot.35

In Ezr. 8:10 it is obvious that cod. A and a small group of
allied MSS have preserved an ancient reading which stood in
the text of Theodotion, but is wanting in MT, L, and the B
group alike. MT reads tV/JlblS "WE ; the B and L groups have curb
vl&v 2aXe^ou0, or its equivalent. But A and its fellows have cnrb
VLMV Ba[a]w, 2eXe£/uoi>0, which is certainly correct. The name
was dropped from the L recension and from the MSS of the B
group because (on comparison with MT) the flavi was taken
for an unnecessary doublet of vi&v.

It must always be remembered that A stands in no sense
alone. Its text is usually that of the great majority of our MSS.

But what is much more important still is the fact, which is
quite obvious in every part of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. and I Esdras,
that the cause of the considerable variation in the Greek texts is
not correction, but corruption; and that the corrupt forms of
proper names, whi, h are especially characteristic of the B group

35 This is a mere correction for 'lovSaiot; cf. codex 55 and the Ethiopic version.

94 EZRA STUDIES

of MSS, were derived directly from the very same (and far
more correct) forms which appear in A and its nearest
associates. In other words: we have in our MSS the offspring
of only -one Greek version of the three canonical books, namely
that of Theodotion; at a short distance from the original, but
already considerably disfigured by accidents of transmission,
stands A; farther on in the same direction, and with the dis
figurement very much increased, follow the MSS of the B group.

The great inferiority of codex B, together with the fact that it
represents in general a mere corruption of the A text, may be illus
trated here by a few typical examples ; others will be given below.

II Chron. 34:22, A ®aKova&, B KadovaX. Ars reading agrees
neither with MT nor with II Kings 22 : 14, but undoubtedly
represents Theodotion's rendering of nmpfl , as also appears from
a comparison of the qere with the ketib in our MT.

II Chron. 36:8, the transliteration yavo^a, mentioned above.
A and most MSS have yavo^av (the v from the following letter ft, in
an uncial text), B yavo^ari, with the familiar corruption of N to H.

I Chron. 5:6, 26, for Xjbs rfon, A has both times ®ay\a0-
fyaKvao-ap:, B, in vs. 6 QaXyaffavao-ap, and in vs. 26 tyayvaffra/jLaaap.
This is a fair sample of the difference between A and B through
out the four Chron. -Ezr. books.

I Chron. 1:54 (and Gen. 36:43) for the name DTJ Alias Hpap,,
B 2ia(f>Q)eLv ! The scribal blunders, mostly made in copying a cur
sive text, are only those which the B scribes are constantly making.
The original transliteration was aipa/i. The Z came from the
final N of the preceding word; ip = c/>, as very often; the confusion
of a with ft> can be found on almost every page of B; ft becomes
iv, vi, etc. very frequently.

I Chron. 2:47, for the name "'IT j , A has Trjpaco/ji^ B ^a)jap.
Neither agrees with MT, and the B reading is a corruption
from that of A, as usual.

I Chron. 4:5, for ^HITX, A Acr^oup, B ^apa (A for X, see
below on Neh. 3:2).

I Chron. 4:21, the translit. e/3Sa6 a/3/3oi>?, given correctly in A
and in other codices. B has e^pad aftax. This does not mean
at all that B has been corrected according to a reading t"l"O>* ;
on the contrary, the confusion of the letters S and p is a rather
common thing in B or its nearest ancestors. Another example
of the kind is Ezr. 8 : 27 Ka^ovBrjO (the transliteration, according

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 95

to B), where A and most of the others have Kafyovprj or its equiva
lent. In both of these cases, and in others of the same nature,
the testimony of the other MSS of the B group shows that we have
to do merely with corruption in the Greek text.

Neh. 3: 2, B reads Za/3aovp for MT ^3T. This certainly seems
at first sight to point to a variant Hebrew reading, but it does
not in fact. The other MSS of the B group (8 , V) show that the
reading of their archetype was Za/c^ovp. The two scribal blun
ders, B for K and A for X, have each many examples in codex B.

II Chron. 27 : 3 ;- 33 : 14. Theodotion's transliteration o</>aX was
corrupted by one of the very first copyists into o(f)\a (so A and
the best of the others) ; B has in both cases oVXa, "arms."

Such examples as these could be given by the hundred. And
they are simply typical of what is the case in every part of the
four books now under discussion.38 Attention should be called,
too, to the large number of omissions in codex B, due simply
to incredible carelessness. A good example is the very first verse
of Ezra, in which three words absolutely necessary to the sense
are dropped out. Phrases and whole sentences are lost with sur
prising frequency; see, for example, in Ezr.-Neh. alone, Ezr. 1:3;
2:10, 39; 3:3; 6:5; 8:5; Neh. 3:4; 7:26 f., 48.

This will suffice to show the character of the manuscript. In
Chron. -Ezr. -Neh. and I Esdras, the best uncial, by far, is A;
and the worst, by far, is B. It would be hard to find, among the
more pretentious MSS of the Greek Old Testament, any other
such miserable specimen of textual tradition as that which codex
B offers in these particular books. On the other hand, it repre
sents a text which has suffered comparatively little editorial
correction. Of course, all of our MSS have been more or less
"improved" by the rectification of obvious errors and the substi-

36 If there is any kind of blunder, or confusion of Greek letters, which the transcriber of
B (and perhaps also, of its nearest ancestor) did not make repeatedly, I do not know what
it is. It is to be hoped that the time may soon come when the authors and editors of works
dealing with the Old Testament will cease to load their pages with the textual absurdities
of this codex. At present, the custom is all but universal. It might be added, in general,
that the recording of obvious blunders in spelling, and of the orthographic habits of unknown
scribes (similar habits and peculiarities being already well known) is not a matter of the
least scientific interest. The editors of the Encyclopaedia Biblica, for instance, have made
their work the repository of thousands of absolutely worthless "variants ;" as though it were
useful to note the occurrence of both ASii/ and ASen/, or as though there could be any text-
critical or other value even in the fact that while one codex reads Be*TiAe0 another reads
BaiKxeiAaifl (the pronunciation being exactly the same in the two cases) ; to say nothing of
recording such rubbish a B's X0ao8, from EAAaS (all ordinary blunders, even the X ; cf. the
reading of J$ in Neh. 7:40, etc.) in I Chron. 11:30, or its BayaStijA, for BeflSayu^, in Josh. 15:41,
v, for 7r6Aea>i/, in T Chron. 18:8, or hundreds of others even worse than these!

96 EZRA STUDIES

tution of translations for the more disturbing transliterations.
Examples of such correction in both A and B have already been
given; it has taken place less often in B than in A.

2. Hexaplar MSS of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh.

As has already been said (above, p. 3), Hexaplar Greek texts
of these Old Testament books, Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. and I Esdras,
have heretofore been quite unknown. We have the Syro-
Hexaplar version of I Esdras, however; and in the first of these
essays I have published for the first time the extant fragments of
the same version of Nehemiah.37 We therefore have direct access
to the "Septuagint" column of Origen's Hexapla, not only in
I Esdras but also in Nehemiah. Through the general neglect
and misunderstanding of I Esdras it has happened that no one
has ascertained what Greek MSS are most nearly related to the
Syriac, though this can be done with the greatest ease and cer
tainty, thanks to the abundance of proper names. Nestle's aston
ishing assertion that the Syriac I Esdras was derived "from the
Lucian text" (!) has already been noticed. Comparison shows,
on the contrary, that the Hexaplar Syriac of both I Esdras and
Neh. clings closely at every point to the peculiar text
of the B group, which has just been described. That is, the
MSS of the B group are Hexaplar MSS. This conclusion is
confirmed by the much misunderstood note appended to the
book of Nehemiah in codex ^ , written apparently by the
original hand.38 The note states that the codex had been care-

37 1 might have added there, in giving the evidence that this is really the Syro-Hexaplar
version, that its transcriber himself explains exactly what is meant by the recurring phrase,
" according to the tradition of the Seventy." In a note at the end of the extracts from the
book of Daniel (MS Brit. Mus. Add. 12,168, fol. 1616) he says that the version from which
all these excerpts are made is that of Paul of Telia.

38 Thus Swete, in his edition; and the probability seems to me to be strongly supported
by the attendant facts. Of course, the task of distinguishing the work of the successive
hands in corlex fc$ is one of notorious difficulty — often quite hopeless. The matter is further
complicated by the considerable additions to the text which have been made by the ''second"
corrector (J$ c. a), of the seventh century, whose work has been quite generally supposed to
be that which is referred to in the note; see Tischendorf's Vetus Testamentum Graece (1887),
Vol. I, Prolegomena, p. 63; Nestle, Einfuhrung in das griechische NT2, p. 51; and compare
also the note appended (this time by ^ c. a9) to the book of Esther in codex J$. But the addi
tions of this corrector are of a quite different type. They include : (1) the plus of the Hebrew
(on which see below) ; also (2) corrections from the A text, such as those in Neh. 2 : 16 ; 7 : 70,
and elsewhere; (3) extensive insertions, mostly worthless doublet readings, from the L
recension, such as those in Neh. 1 : 9, 11 ; 2 : 5, 6, 8, etc. ; and (4) corrections from still other
sources, such as the name of the month in Neh. 1 :1, and the word ewoOxos in 1 :11. It would
be plain, even without direct proof, that this variegated material was not derived from
Origen's "LXX" column ; and the witness of the Syro-Hex. version in 2 : 5-8 shows conclusively
that it was not. This version of Paul of Telia, it is to be remembered, included everything
—even the asterisked matter — which stood in the fifth column of the Hexapla. The note at
the end of Neh. in fc< then, if it tells the truth, has nothing to do w^th the work of the cor
rector fc$c. a.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 97

fully collated with one of the oldest and most correct of all existing
Hexaplar MSS. But there is in the MS itself no evidence of
any considerable diorthosis to which this note could refer. The
corrections in the original hand are few and unimportant. The
necessary conclusion is, that at least in the book of Ezr.-Neh.
codex S is, and from the first was known to be, a Hexaplar codex ;
and that care was taken to make it as faithful a replica of Origen's
text as possible.39

We can say then with certainty that in both "First Esdras"
and "Second Esdras" (Ezra-Nehemiah) the manuscripts ^,40 B,
55 represent more or less faithful transcripts of the fifth column
of the Hexapla, and that codex N41 is Hexaplar at least in Ezr.-
Neh. It is important to notice, further, that the asterisked
passages (Origen's insertions from the plus of the Hebrew) are
omitted. This fact appears plainly from a comparison of the
Greek with the surviving fragments of the Syro-Hexaplar Nehe-
miah, which contain the plus. The B MSS coincide exactly
with the Syriac except in this one particular.42

In regard to the B group in Chronicles it is necessary to
speak with more caution ; but it is hardly to be doubted that here
also these same MSS contain the Hexaplar text. The codices S,
B, and 55, at all events, have the very same character here, and
bear the same relation to one another and to the A group, as in
the Ezra-Nehemiah books. I have not satisfied myself, thus far,
that the same is true of codex N ; for this, in the majority of the

39 One must of course bear in mind the fact of the remarkable displacement of a portion
of codex fc$, and of the MS from which it was copied (the origin of the circum
stance having been, probably, the accidental transposition of a single quire), in these very
books ; and also the possibility that the above-mentioned note was simply transcribed from
an older codex. Bui no one of all these uncertainties can affect the conclusion that fc$ is
here a Hexaplar MS. That fact is absolutely certain.

^o In codex &$ , which is incomplete, I Esdras is now lacking, to be sure. The fact that
in certain other books of the Old Testament codex B contains, or has affinities with, a Hexa
plar text is well known ; see Swete's Introd., pp. 487 f. ; Cornill, Einleitungi, p. 335.

41 According to Swete's Introduction, pp. 132, 202, this codex does not contain
I Esdras. What the ground of this statement is, I do not know, and nothing in the literature
to which I have access has yielded any explanation. According to Holmes and Parsons,
nearly the whole of the last chapter of the book is missing in the codex (XI), but their
apparatus includes readings from every other part.

The relation of the text of N to that of the Hexapla is not a simple one. In Ezr.-Neh.
it is plainly based on Origen's ; in I Esdras and Chron., on the other hand, it differs so widely
as to make one of two suppositions necessary: either it represents an intermediate
stage between the older and more correct text of A and the type selected by Origen ; or else,
it is eclectic. It usually contains old and relatively correct readings, but is plainly related
everywhere to the Origen text in a way that is not true of cod. A and its nearest relatives.
I have not made any thorough examination, and so cannot speak with confidence.

*2 In codex fc$, the '"second" corrector (&{ c. a), of the seventh century, has introduced
these passages, as well as considerable other material of varied character. See the descrip
tion of his work in a preceding note.

98 EZRA STUDIES

points at which I have tested it, has seemed to abandon its com
panions of the B group and to conform to the text of A and its
fellows; see above. The investigation is rendered more difficult
by the fact that S$ is wanting in nearly the whole of Chronicles,
while the help of the Syriac and Ethiopic versions is no longer
to be had, and the text of B is so corrupt as to render it unfit to
be a basis of comparison.

The following passages will serve to show both the relatively
poor quality of the Hexaplar text in these books (Chronicles,
Ezra, Nehemiah, I Esdras) and also the relative amount of cor
ruption in the several MSS which compose the Hexaplar group.
It is often possible to recognize successive stages of degeneration,
and in such cases it is almost invariably codex B which occupies
the last stage.

Ezr. 10: 23, where A and nearly all of the MSS of its "group"
have the correct reading:

A, KcoXira? teal <$>edeia teal
}$ , KcoXtrau tc. <&acua K.
N, KcoXter K. Qabaia K.

B, KtwXteu K. <$>a§aia K.

Neh. 1:1, A, Xacre??Xou; K and N, 2e%e??X; B,
I Chron. 11:12, A (correctly), A%a)^i; tf , A%com; B,
I Chron. 11:33 f., Theodotion's original transliteration must
have been:

EXtaySa 6 2aaXa/3a>w, {3eve Acra/i 6 Tovvi
A, EXia/3a o 2aX«/3ftm, viol™ A<ra/-t 6 Tcovvi

B, 2a/^a/3a 6 O//,et, Bewata? 6 ^
The variations of X and B from the original text are due here, as
in the other cases, merely to copyist's blunders in the Greek.
I Chron. 12:27, A and N, IwaSae; X, Ta>aSae; B,
I Chron. 15:9, A, EXt??X; tf , Ei^X; B, Evrjp.^
Neh. 7:70, 72, A, %o#a)z;a>0; X and B, in both places,

*3 Such harmless correction of Thedotion's unnecessary transliteration occurs spora
dically in all of the MSS. Thus in I Chron. 2 : 53 B has iroAet? laetp, while A retains Kaptafliaeip.

44 Presumably ev from w, as occasionally elsewhere.

« How it is possible for a scholar who has both commented on the books of Chronicles
and edited their Hebrew text to say (as quoted above) : " B hat . . . . im ganzen den besseren
Text, auch bei den Namen," when it is everywhere as clear as daylight that the difference
between the readings of A and B, in Swete's apparatus, is a difference due simply to
inner-Greek corruption, and that A has. or approximates to, the very forms-
from which those of B were corrupted, passes my comprehension.

TEXTUAL CKITICISM or CHRONICLES-EZEA-NEHEMIAH 99

I Esdr. 5:66, A, Acrfiao-apeO, the original (corrupt) reading
of the I Esdr. fragment; B, N, Ao-fta/ca^aO:, and this still more
corrupt form stood in the Hexapla, as is shown by the Syriac and
Ethiopic versions.

I Esdr. 8:7, A, Ef/oa?; B, A-fapa? ( ! ) ; so also the Syr.-Hex. and
the Eth. (with a slight variation). Cf. the form found in B in 9:46.

I Esdr. 8:31. For <J>aa0/ua>a/3 (or IT), given in all the MSS
which are not Hexaplar, B, Syriac, and Ethiopic have MaaQ/jLcoaff.

I Esdr. 8:33. The Hebrew (Ezr. 8:7) has: PP7IZT Db^ "DM-
This was correctly rendered in the I Esdras text, as A and its
associates show: etc rwv vlwv EXa/A, 'leoWa?. In the text of Ori-
gen's LXX column, the first letter of each of the two proper names
was missing; B has etc TWV vlwv Aa/i, 'Eo-ta?, and with this the
Ethiopic agrees, though combining the two proper names into one ;
Syriac has | ^ ™vv*. | vi ^ ^j^, i. e. the same text, but reading MAA
in place of A AM.

These examples, which are truly representative, could be vastly
multiplied. And they all tell the same story. It is an interesting
question, but one which we hardly have the means of answering,
how Origen happened to choose this inferior text for his "Sep-
tuagint." Possibly some old and venerated codex led him astray;
or it may be that he made the same mistake which modern scholars
have made. Not knowing that Theodotion was the author of this
version — and we may be sure (see above, p. 4) that he did not
know it — he may have looked with suspicion on the Greek text
that agreed closely with MT, and have preferred the one that
showed somewhat more divergence. Even the latter stood nearer
to the Hebrew (leaving proper names out of account) than was the
case with the Greek versions of most of the Old Testament books.

3. The Versions Made from Origerfs "Septuagint"

The main facts regarding the Syriac translation, made by Paul
of Telia, I have already set forth (above, pp. 1 ff.). It is most
unfortunate that just this portion of the Maes codex, which
contained Chronicles, First Esdras, Ezra, and Nehemiah, should
have perished utterly, leaving no trace behind. In other manu
scripts I Esdras has been preserved entire; and a single MS —
published by me above, pp. 7-10 — gives us a few extracts from
Nehemiah.

We know that this version was made from the fifth column of

100 EZRA STUDIES

the Hexapla, and that it was very exact. In the attempt to deter
mine its relation to the existing Hexaplar MSS of the Chron.-Ezra
books we are at a great disadvantage, because of the scantiness of
the material. Codex X lacks I Esdras; and N, as has already
been observed, either occupies an intermediate position or else
yields an eclectic text, and cannot be trusted as a witness to
Origen's readings. Throughout I Esdras the Syriac stands
pretty close to codex B, but represents in general a text some
what less disfigured by the blunders of scribes. The same is true
in the Nehemiah extracts. Here, where we are at last able to
compare X , the portion of the text is too small in extent to give
a satisfactory basis of comparison. The Syriac agrees very notice
ably with B in reproducing the clerical blunder XeX/ceta (| .oV..)
in 1:1, and in retaining eicrenvay pevw (j^aiio) instead of efcreray-
/jievoM, in 4:16(10) ; in the former case against all other witnesses,
and in the latter against all but the faithful codex 55. On the
other hand, the Syriac agrees with X against B in the passages
8:2, real eo>?; 8:9, ol crvveri&vres' ibid., rjicovcrev; 8:10, pepiSas. I
have not made any careful comparison, however.

The Greek of Origen's fifth column contained his selected text
expanded by the insertion of translations of the plus of MT, these
additions being marked in each case by an asterisk and a meto-
belus. The early Greek transcripts of this column, made by those
who wished the "true Septuagint text," omitted the asterisked
portions, as we have seen. Paul of Telia translated the whole
column, retaining the signs.46 Subsequent copyists of his ver
sion generally retained the whole text, but omitted the signs. This
is true of the Nehemiah extracts in our single surviving manu
script ; the plus of the Hebrew is there, but not distinguished in
any way. See for illustration 2:1, 8; 8:18.

Of an Ethiopia version of Origen's "LXX," only I Esdras
has thus far been published. It has not heretofore been recog
nized as Hexaplar in its origin. Whether a similar version of
any other of the Chron.-Ezra books was made, is not known. The
text was edited, from five manuscripts, by Dillmann in his Vet.
Test. Aethopici Tom. F, Libri Apocryphi, Berlin, 1894. He
himself remarks concerning this version (p. 219) that it was made
at an early date, from a Greek text which it renders very faithfully,
and that it has been well preserved.

*6 The text of I Esdras of course did not contain any of these asterisked passages.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 101

Examination of this version shows that it is a valuable witness
to the Hexaplar text. It must have been made with unusual care,
from a comparatively trustworthy codex. The Greek which can
be restored from it coincides throughout with that obtained from
the Syr.-Hex., B, 55, and (frequently) N, in sharp distinction
from the other and more common type of text represented by A
and the army of cursives. Some striking examples of this coin
cidence have already been given, and a great many more could be
added if it were necessary. Ethiopic versions of Old Testament
books are usually of very little consequence, and it is therefore
most refreshing to find "one that is really useful.

It is interesting to see what indisputable evidence is furnished
of the corrupt state of the manuscript which Origen selected.
Thus, in 5:18, where the old "Egyptian" reading was Ba£#a<7/na)#,
the stupid doublet ^aidaa-^wv ^afji/jLcoO is faithfully reproduced by
the Ethiopic and B (Syriac is wanting here) ; and in 8:29, where
the ordinary text had <3>£z>ea?, Tepcrcw • a?ro, the monstrous reading
<3?o/9o?, Tapoa-QTo/jLos (think of pinning our faith to such tran
scribers as these!) is attested by B, Syriac, and Ethiopic alike.
Another good illustration is found in 9:25. Here, instead of Ovpco-
pwv, "doorkeepers," Origen's text had Ovyarepwv, "daughters'^ !),
and this nonsense is transmitted, as usual, by B, Ethiopic, and
Paul of Telia. That we are ultimately dealing in these cases
merely with a single very corrupt manuscript is proved conclu
sively — as also in a hundred similar cases — by the fact that both
the Syrian text (preserved in L) and the ordinary Egyptian text
(given by the great majority of the MSS) testify only to the
correct reading.

The Ethiopic will generally be found, then, to agree with codex
B. In many passages it differs, however, its distance from B being,
on the whole, about the same as that of the Syriac, with which,
in turn, it frequently fails to coincide.

4. The Two Main Branches of the Greek Tradition

In the case of the Chron.-Ezr. books, the fact of a double tradi
tion of the Greek text can be especially well observed. The one
branch may be called the Syrian, inasmuch as it forms the basis
of the Lucianic recension; the other I have termed Egyptian,
and this designation, though probably not exact, is at least con
venient.

102 EZKA STUDIES

In the I Esdras fragment, and especially in the Story of the
Youths, where there is no complication from successive transla
tions, conformation to a Semitic text, and the like, the phenomenon
of the two slightly differing types of text is seen in its simplest
form. A typical case is that of the proper name in 4:29, which
I have elsewhere discussed (above, p. 43). Here, the form
Bafatfou is attested by a formidable array of witnesses, including
Josephus ; while the more familiar form, J$apTa/cov, goes back to a
period considerably earlier than Origen, as is shown by the fact
that it is attested by all our Greek MSS, excepting the few which
constitute the L group. Throughout the whole of I Esdras, some
thing similar to this can be observed. There are plainly two distinct
traditions of the Greek text, differing from each other slightly, on
the whole, including both the spelling of the proper names and
the wording of the narrative. The variation is not at all such as
to suggest two translations, but consists rather in those occa
sional differences which inevitably arise in the course of time,
through the ordinary accidents of transmission, when documents
are handed down through separate lines or families of manuscripts.
The one "family" includes the text adopted by Origen, and also
nearly all of the extant MSS; and we may therefore regard
Alexandria as its proper home, even though it was in current use
far beyond the borders of Egypt. Of the text belonging to the
other line of transmission we know that it formed the basis of the
one which came to be regarded as authoritative in Syria, at least in
and after the fourth century A. D. (Swete, Introduction, pp. 80-
86). It is thus presumably the text which had been handed
down in Syria and Palestine from an early date. Its influence
also extended far to the north and west. The MSS containing it
are few (those of the L recension), but it is also embodied in the
old Latin version of I Esdras. This same type of text — plainly
belonging to the same tradition as that of I Esdras — is found in
other parts of the Old Testament, as is well known. A. Mez, in a
pamphlet47 published in 1895, showed that the Greek text followed
by Josephus in his Antiquities, for the part of the Old Testament
which includes Joshua, Judges, and the two books of Samuel, was
usually the same which underlies the L recension. I had already,
in my own investigation of the text of I Esdras, conducted in that

n Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht fiir Backer, v.-vii. der ArchaoL, Basel. See also
Swete's Introduction, p. 379.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 103

same year, made a similar comparison for this book, and reached
a result somewhat resembling that of Mez. In this case, how
ever, Josephus' text does not correspond to the nucleus of L ; nor,
on the other hand, does it agree throughout with any form of the
"Egyptian" tradition; it seems rather to occupy an intermediate
position, giving now the reading of the one, now of the other.
The cases in which Josephus coincides with L, against the ordi
nary I Esdras text, while not many in number, are worthy of
notice. Examples are: I Esdr. 1:9, cf. Jos. x, 71, the numbers
of the sheep and bullocks. I Esdr. 4:29, cf. Jos. xi, 54, the
name of the father of Apama, already mentioned as an example.
Ezra. 4:10 (the passage now missing in our I Esdr. 2:16 [13]),
cf. Jos. xi, 19, the name of the king, Salinanassar. Inasmuch as
all the Greek texts of I Esdras came from a single MS, the
beginning of the two diverging lines of tradition, Egyptian and
Syrian, lies not very far back, presumably a good while after the
time of Josephus. It follows that the coincidence of his text with
either one of the two (in cases where we cannot suspect correction
or contamination) gives us the original reading of the I Esdras
fragment.

From what has been said thus far, it might be supposed that
the L text embodies merely the Syro-Palestinian tradition of the
I Esdras Greek in the same way that the MSS of the A and B
groups embody the Egyptian tradition. This is by no means true,
as will be shown below. The L text is everywhere contaminated,
conflated, and arbitrarily altered, even in the Story of the Three
Youths; and this unfortunate redaction — the only form in which
we know the text — was undertaken at a late date.

In the canonical Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., again, we can observe the
same phenomenon of a Syrian text differing slightly (in its primi
tive form) but unmistakably from the Egyptian text. The differ
entiation did not begin in this case until after the middle of the
second century A. D., since it is in Theodotion's version that it
takes place. We should therefore expect the variation to be rela
tively small, and this it is in fact; but the distinction between
"Syrian" text and "Egyptian" text is a real and important one,
nevertheless. No better illustration is needed than that which
has already been given, above, in recording occasional instances in
which the Syria^ tradition preserves Theodotion's characteristic
transliteration — directly against the whole tendency of

104 EZRA STUDIES

the L recension — while the Egyptian emends by translating.
It often happens, of course, that the L MSS contain a synonym
of the word which is found in all the other codices. This is in
many cases not the mere result of a somewhat free transmission,
however, but rather of a deliberate revision; see below. There
are not a few instances, finally, of addition, subtraction, or altera
tion in the Egyptian text, where L has preserved the original
form. A good example is furnished by I Chron. 26:16-18, where
in the whole array of MSS of the A and B groups vs. 18 contains
a secondary rendering48 which was evidently unknown in Syria, as
it is wanting in L. Such revision as this is rare in the Egyptian
text, however, while in L it is the rule. An example of a later
Egyptian alteration, whose influence has not proceeded quite so
far, is II Chron. 33:14, where MT reads: D^IH
bs^b H3CV Theodotion rendered this: [Mera ravra
crev . . . . ] /cal e/CTropevo/jLevcov rrjv Trv\j)v rrjv i%0viKr)v KVK\d0ev
(reading 2"QC ) et? TO ofaX. In this text, through the blunders of
a copyist or two and the influence of the Greek in 27:3, the word
IxOvucrjv was lost and et? TO o(pa\ became et? avrb o<j)\a (B, al.
o?r\a). A revising hand added, presumably in the margin of a
MS, a new rendering of the passage: tcara r^v ela-o&bv rr^v §ia TT)?
irv\ri<$ TTJ? l%0VLfcr)S teal 7repieKVK\a)(rev (— MT) TO aSim>z>.49 This
then found its way as a doublet reading into the text of an
important group of codices, including A, and into the margin of
B. A single one of these changes, that of O<£AA into O<I>AA,
antedates the branching-off of the Syrian tradition; in other
respects L has here kept the original reading.

In general, the best MSS of the Egyptian family present a
homogeneous text which has been very little revised. By compar
ing them among themselves, with the help of the massoretic
Hebrew, we can usually find our way back to the very words of
Theodotion. The aid of L can never be dispensed with, however*
and in a good many cases it is our sole Greek witness to the true
reading. It is sometimes the case, to be sure, that even with the
testimony of both recensions before us we are at a loss to find the

*s Based on a slightly different Hebrew text? The rpely suggests niClB + rolZJ ; the
word nbO'ELH] is apparently in another place; nbl3?n is not translated in either version.
This added rendering makes it still more certain, by the way, that in the first clause of vs.
17 the original reading was El^b , and not D^lbfl (the H came from the last letter of the
preceding word). Our modern translators, editors, and commentators appear not to have
noticed this.

49 On the possibility that this was the translation of Symmachus, see below,

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 105

original. With L alone, on the other hand, we should be very
badly off. Unless it is constantly controlled by the Egyptian
text it is very difficult to put it to any critical use. Along both of
these main lines of tradition there has been a good deal of
accidental corruption of the text, the greater part of which is
easy to trace. The only type of text in which this corruption has
gone very far is, as has been shown, Origen's own "Septuagint."
The relation of the A group to the B group is in all other respects
a close one; see, for an illustration, Neh. 12:376-38, where a
long passage is wanting in ABX , though present in many cursives
as well as in the L text. It formed a part of the Theodotion version,
as the Oavvovpeip shows (cf. 3:11). That is, the codex which
was the ancestor of both A and the MS which Origen took as the
basis of his text had accidentally lost this passage. Among the
cursives of the Egyptian family which deserve close attention,
cod. 56 and (especially) the Aldine MS 121 ~M are conspicuous for
the extent to which they have preserved the original readings of
the Theodotion version.

5. The Syrian Tradition, Hie Lucian Recension, and our L Text

How wide an influence the Syro-Palestinian text exerted
during its early history, while it represented merely a divergent
form of the Greek tradition, we do not know. We do not even
know whether it was ever a relatively correct text.51 We know
simply that it preserved a good many old readings which were lost
or changed in the more widely current version. It presumably
deteriorated gradually, like its fellows, until the time when it was
made the basis of that thoroughgoing recension which has survived
to the present day.

Near the end of the third century A. D., Lucian of Antioch
undertook a revision of the Greek Old Testament. The few facts
which are known in regard to this Syrian editor have often been
rehearsed ; and the reasons why our L text is commonly supposed
(and doubtless rightly) to be identical with Lucian's recension
are also familiar. w Even the bare comparison of the citations from
Theodoret, given in Holmes and Parsons, would lead one to the

50 This codex sometimes shows a close affinity with the L MSS, it is to be observed.

5! The old Latin translation of I Esdras gives us some information on this point, to be
eure ; see below.

52 See Swete, Introduction, pp. 80-86.

106 EZRA STUDIES

conclusion that L is an Antiochian text ; while the fact that it rep
resents not a growth but an arbitrary revision is patent enough.
Occasionally in descriptions, and commonly in actual use, our
L text is treated as though it were identical, or nearly identical,
with the text of the Syro-Palestinian tradition. Thus Swete
(Introduction, p. 379) , in dealing with the Old Testament text
used by Josephus, speaks of a probability that in certain of the
historical books "the Greek Bible of Palestine during the second
half of the first century presented a text not very remote from that
of the recension which emanated from Antioch early in the
fourth." But this is by no means the true state of the case. The
version as reconstructed by Lucian bears about the same relation
to the one on which it was based as a thoroughly remodeled,
renewed, and enlarged house bears to its smaller original. In
every part of the structure, a great many of the old beams, boards,
stones, and other materials have been replaced by new ones, new
fabric has everywhere been superadded to the old, and the fashion
of the whole has been changed. The following classes of altera
tions characterize the Lucian recension:

1. The text has been extensively conformed to the massoretic
Hebrew, (a) The plus of MT is freely inserted; not consistently

—nothing is done consistently in the L recension — but as a rule.
Thus I Chron. 26:16, 17; Ezr. 9:13; 10:3; Neh. 2:1, 8; 8:9;
11:23; these being merely single examples of what takes place in
every chapter. (6) The Greek text is very frequently corrected
according to the Hebrew. The original reading of the Greek is
changed from singular to plural, or vice versa, in order to conform
to MT. Words which appear to be out of agreement with the
Hebrew are often dropped, and their places are taken by transla
tions of MT. So, for instance, in Ezr. 9:3, 5.

2. The Greek has been very much contaminated from other
Greek texts. These include: (a) The parallel or duplicate
accounts. Thus, a great many of the original readings of the L
I Esdras have been discarded, their places being filled by the
readings of the canonical version. In like manner, the readings
of the parallel passages in the other historical books are adopted
whenever they happen to be preferred. That is, for example, the
reader of the L version of Chronicles must everywhere be prepared
to find that the word or phrase with which he is dealing has simply
been transplanted thither from Genesis, or Samuel, or Kings.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 107

(6) Readings found in any part of the Old Testament may be sub
stituted for those of Theodotion in the interest of the harmonistic
tendency. (c) Harmonizing alterations on the basis of the
immediate context, usually very mischievous, are frequently made.
Thus in I Esdr. 5:5 instead of 6 rov Zopo(3afie\ L offers 6 /cal

3. One constant feature of the L recension is its conflation
from various sources. Side by side with Theodotion's rendering,
in these books, we very often have that of some other translator,
or an extract from a parallel passage. Some of these secondary
renderings are derived from the other Hexaplar versions; some
are doubtless the work of Lucian himself; still others are of
unknown origin. For characteristic examples see I Chron. 22:3;
Ezr. 9:13; Neh. 4:10 (2), 27 (17); 6:10. Often a correction
stands beside the word it was intended to correct, as in I Chron.
4:22. Occasionally a long passage is repeated in varying form,
as in I Esdr. 1:96-13, where the I Esdras and Chronicles
accounts are put side by side. Not infrequently the translation
of our MT is accompanied by the rendering of a manifest corrup
tion of it, as in Neh. 2:6, 8.

It would be interesting to search for traces of the work of
Aquila and Symmachus among these double renderings, whether
they are found in L or in other recensions or manuscripts of these
books. Sometimes, though probably not often, the identification
would be possible. In Neh. 5:13 (L), Oimo? eicnvd^ai 6 #eo?
CTVV TrciVTa civSpa o? ov cmjcrei crvv TOV \6<yov TOVTOV /e.r.X., where
the <rvv - - • • avv^ representing frfc$ • • • • p^ ? is not in the
ordinary Greek, it seems certain that we have an extract from the
translation of Aquila. In 13:25 (L) the verb epabapwaa (other
wise unknown) looks like an imitation of the Hebrew BT-8
(not rendered here by Theodotion) on the basis of the verb
/naStfeii', "make bald." If this is really its origin, it is presum
ably a coinage of Aquila, whose fondness for such new creations
is well known.53

The hand of Symmachus is pretty certainly to be seen in
the double rendering of HrTJ in the Hexaplar text (X, B,
but not the Syr. -Hex.) of Neh. 1:3, ev rrj %o>/oa ev rrj 7rd\ei.

53 On the basis of this verb-form in Neh. 13:25, Klostermann (Realencycl., loc. cit.)
would emend the impos. 'Me " e7raAA6/u.ijf " in Ezr. 9:3, 5 to e/u.a.fiapui/xTji' ! On the contrary, the
Hebrew word which corresponds there is ^b^lO i '' mJ' outer garment," and we must read
in both verses TO TraAAtor M.OV.

108 EZRA STUDIES

We know that Symmachus would have been likely to substitute
TTo'Xi? for the older rendering %&>/oa, for he makes this very same
correction in I Kings 20:14 and Dan. 8:2. The secondary trans
lation in II Chron. 33:14 (the passage already discussed above),
where b£3?n is rendered by TO aSvrov — the doublet this time also
occurring not in L but in certain Egyptian MSS — suggests
Symmachus, though I do not know that it is possible to say more
than this. In I Sam. 5:9 Symmachus renders D^bs2 by icpwrnd,
and he is the only one of the translators to interpret the root bE$
in this way. In Neh. 3:15, where MT has nb IT , and the ordi
nary Egyptian text reads rwv KwSiW,54 codex ^ has, instead, 6e
rov 2tXa>a/u. This certainly appears to be an ascription to Theo-
dotion, as Klostermann has observed. Whether it is a correct
ascription or not is another question, but the possibility can
hardly be denied. In that case we should have to suppose that
a rendering corresponding to our MT has supplanted the original
one here.

4. Alterations merely in the interest of literary quality and
completeness, or to suit the editor's dogmatic or other preferences,
are everywhere abundant. These include: (a) The removal
(usual, but not invariable) of Theodotion's transliterations, which
are accordingly replaced by translations. For examples, see the
list above. (6) The free revision of difficult phrases, often to
the extent of changing their meaning and completely obscuring
their relation to the original Semitic. A characteristic example
is I Esdr. 4:39, where instead of the exactly rendered, but dis
turbing, Aramaic idiom, ra Slicaia Troiel euro Trdvrcov ra>v abUwv,
"she executes judgment on all the wicked," the L text has Sifcata
Troiel, /cal CLTTO Trdvrcov ro)v aSifcaiv aTre^erat. So in 5:6 L alters
rov jrpaiTov fJirfvo^ (for TTJ 7rpo)Trj rov fjiijvds) into TW TrpcoTW /JLTJVI.
Or in 2:17 (14) where the ordinary text has vabv V7ro/3d\\ovrai,
-in MT ItriT1 fcnstf — L has "improved" the reading to vabv
V7rep/3d\\ovra 6e^\iovcnv. Or in II Chron. 2:12 (13), rbv TralSd
pov substituted for rbv Trarepa /JLOV. (c) Supplementary and
interpretative additions, composed freely ad hoc. These are also
very numerous, and every one of them is a trap for the unwary
text-critic who wishes to advance science by giving new Hebrew

54 This word is a veritable translation of nllJ (cf. the Aramaic fcSnll , "hide"), and
is by no means to be altered into /3oAt8wv, as Klostermann proposes on the basis of the ren
dering in 4:17 (11).

TEXTUAL CRITICISM or CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 109

readings from "Lucian." For example, in II Chron. 18:19 the
narrative runs as follows: 'Yah we said to his heavenly retainers,
Who will mislead Ahab? One proposed one thing, and another
another.' At this point L adds: /cal elirev, OUTOJ? ov Sw^o-et;55
"But Yahwe said, You will not succeed in this way." Compare
vs. 21. In Neh. 4:86 (vs. 18 in the L Greek) just after the word
D!TDB12 , L has /cal wptaaa avrovs Kvpuov \eywv, a purely arbitrary
insertion in the Greek. There are many such examples, besides
a good many cases in which the addition of a word or two has
been made with interpretative intent. Thus, the words "to Jeru
salem," Neh. 8:1; "of Benjamin," 11:8; the name "Ezra"' in
8:18; see also I Esdr. 4:13, 48, 61; 5:5; Neh. 12:1, etc. Such
interjected vocatives as "O king!" I Esdr. 4:43; "O Lord!"
4:60, are of course to be expected. And finally, a characteristic
example is afforded by the close of I Esdras. In the original
fragment, the end was reached in the middle of a sentence;
but in the L text this inelegant conclusion is improved by
the addition of a verse (Neh. 8:13) from the canonical version.
(d) The substitution of synonyms. This well-known and com
paratively harmless peculiarity of the L recension needs no
illustration.

So much for the deliberate alterations undertaken by the
Lucianic revision. As for the accidental corruption which the
Syro-Palestinian Greek text had already undergone in the process
of its transmission, before suffering this very extensive editorial
transformation, it is sufficient to say that it does not appear to
have been different, in kind or degree, from that which befell the
standard Egyptian text. In general, the amount of this accidental
corruption is much underestimated by those who have made use of
Lagarde's edition.56 Klostermann (loc. cit., p. 508) even finds in
some of it the evidence of differing dialects: "Wenigstens ist
es kein Zufall, wenn die dentale Tenuis durch Sibilans ersetzt

55Lagarde edits — wrongly, as I believe — <a.\ elnev oiirw? Oi» Svi/jjo-ei.

5(>It is true, in general, of the modern use of the Greek Bible for text-critical purposes
that recourse is had far too often to the hypothesis of divergent Hebrew texts, while there
is far too little appreciation of the extent to which the Greek texts themselves have been
corrupted in transmis.-ion. It is generally taken for granted, moreover (see, e. g., Benzinger's
remark on the Greek MSS of Kings, in the introduction to his Comm.) that the text which
diverges most from MT is the oldest and most important. But this is a criterion which
has no value unless it is supplemented by exact information as to the quality of individual
MSS and the nature of translations and recensions. Codex B and the L text, for instance,
usualh shr)w the greatest divergence from MT, and in both cases the divergence means, as
a rule, merely perversion of the older readings, which (more nearly agreeing with MT) are
found in other MSS.

110 EZRA STUDIES

wird, wie arLra (JStTttn), arrjp^ reX/now, bei Luc, (lurch a£i£a,
a£?7/>, <reX)Lta)^." But this is a mistake. These are scribal blunders
of a very common order, which abound also in the MSS of the
ordinary text, and especially (of course) in B and its fellows.

These facts make it plain that the Greek published by Lagarde
is not at all "the old Greek Bible of Palestine," and often bears
little resemblance to it. It is in part a mixed text which is the
result of an eclectic process, and in part a text arbitrarily con
structed de novo; besides all the accidental deterioration which it
has suffered. The fact cannot be emphasized too strongly that
L in Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., when it differs from the ordinary Greek,
usually does not represent another Hebrctv text. It is mainly, of
course, a translation of the Hebrew which lay before Theodotion.
But this Heb. text almost everywhere agreed with our MT; more
over, the translation is very well preserved in the Egyptian MSS,
and it is only rarely that L can improve upon their readings. It
would presumably almost never be the case that a correct reading
preserved only in L would happen also to represent a divergence in
Theodotion's Hebrew. The doublet readings in L, whether Hexa-
plaric or not, are, as a rule, derived either from our MT or from a
manifestly corrupt form of it. Really helpful corrections of MT
are extremely rare. One is to be found in Neh. 11:17, rov alvov
for nbriinn ; undoubtedly derived from another Hebrew text, since
Jerome's Latin makes the same correction. But in the most of
the cases where L presents variant readings which sound plau
sible, we are not by any means at liberty to suppose that
these were derived from a Hebrew text; on the contrary,
they are pretty certain to be arbitrary improvements, of one kind
or another, in the Greek itself. It follows, that emendation of
MT on the basis of L alone is almost never permissible in these
books ; never, in fact, except for the strongest reasons.

All this is obvious enough ; and yet our Old Testament scholars,
in using the L text of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., treat it habitually as
though it represented a Hebrew text of its own. Thus Kittel,57

o7 Kittel. in his Biblia Hebraica, recently published, constantly includes in his notes at
the foot of the page Hebrew rea dings given on the sole authority of L. If
these "varjant readings" are to have any significance at all in his apparatus, they must
be supposed actually to have stood in a Hebrew text and to have been rendered by this
Greek. But of the great majority of them this is not true. They are mere excrescences on the
Greek, due either to the irresponsible reviser or else to obvious errors of Greek transcribers.
Nothing corresponding to them ever stood in any Hebrew text of the Chronicler's work. I
have observed one case, Neh. 11 : 8, in which MT can be emended in accordance with a reading
peculiar to L ; but even here it may be that the oi <x8eA<£oi avrov came from a happy con-

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZRA-NEHEMIAH 111

in his several works on Chron. ; Benzinger,58 in his commentary
on Chronicles ; Bertholet, Co mm. on Ezr.-Neh., and others. Sieg
fried, Comm. on Ezr.-Neh., does not pay much attention to the
examination of the text.

Allied to the Lagarde text, but plainly not belonging to it, is
the old Latin translation of I Esdras. This was made from the
Syro-Palestinian Greek some time before the Lucianic revi
sion; presumably in the second century A. D., since it is cited by
Cyprian. In this version we really have a representative of the
old Syro-Palestinian text, and the aid which it gives is important.
The many additions, corrections, and conflations introduced by
Lucian do not appear in it.59 Its text has come down to us in
several slightly differing forms, which need to be re-examined.

The L Greek text, then, is an instrument only to be used with
the utmost caution. It is true that even in Chron. -Ezr.-Neh. it
contains a good deal of valuable material, not found elsewhere;
but this is much less in amount, and far more difficult to secure,
than is commonly supposed. The quest of it is not quite the
search for two grains of wheat in two bushels of chaff, for in this
case the material in which it is imbedded has also a certain value
of its own — bat only when its origin and true character are under
stood. The folly of "criticizing" our MT by the use of a Greek
text which has itself not been criticized at all is nowhere
more striking than in the present-day use of Lagarde's edition.
The rule usually adopted appears to be: Take any Greek reading

jecture and not from any real Hebrew reading. For examples of this mistaken use, see his
notes on I Chron. 4: 41 (where the Greek must originally have been rd? Tnjyd? a? evpov CKCI,, and
its Heb. = exactly our MT), 5:20 (of course either efto^eri^av or <?|3or][0TJ0T)]a-a»'), 9:37; 12:24;
13:1 (two places); 16: 30 (the second half-verse transferred bodily from the Greek of Ps.
96:10!); 21:20 (see below) ; 24:24 (contamination from 23:20); II Chron. 7:20; 9: 29 ( !) ;
18:2, 29 (both of these conformed to the parallels in Kings) ; 22:6; 25:1; 27:4; 33:2; Ezra
4:23; 10:3,24; Neh. 9:6, 32 ( !) ; 13:1,9.

In general, the apparatus of this Biblia Hebraica in Chron. -Ezr.-Neh. consists largely of
information which is quite worthless for its intended purpose. The "LXX" notes have
rarely any significance for the Hebrew text. In the L version of I Chron. 9:31, for
instance, we have a bit of corrupt Greek side by side with its correct original. Why
include such stuff here? Or why print in II Chron. 2:13 " LXX-f-*«u w^atVeiv," when it is
obvious at the first glance that the verb had its origin in a blundering dittography of the
first letters of the following Hebrew word? Plain blunders of Greek copyists are also
recorded, as in I Chron. 7:8 (twice). The apparatus of a Hebrew Bible (and a reprint of MT
at that !) is not the place to study the performances of third-rate Greek scribes, interesting
as the study might be under other circumstances.

^See, for example, his comments on I Chron. 2:18f.; 3:22: 11 :1, 8 (7repie/3tWa TO; cf.
Ex. 22: 18), 11 (contamination from II Sam. 23:8), 22; 15:13(1); II Chron. 2:12; £5:3.

»'-> Such as those in 1 :9-12 ; 2 : 17 (18) ; 4 : 13, 39, 43, 48, 60, 61 ; 5 : 5— to give only the examples
which have already been mentioned. The incomplete sentence at the end of the I Esdras
fragment is filled out in the Latin, but not in the same way as in the Lucian
Greek.

112 EZRA STUDIES

which seems useful, no matter whence it comes. Thus it happens
that words due simply to copyists' blunders in the Greek, others
which plainly resulted from a corrupt form of our MT, and read
ings which a closer scrutiny would have shown to be merely later
doublet renderings of the same text, are all laid under contribution,
and new and strange Hebrew phrases, said to correspond to them,
are forthwith constructed.60 Since the conglomerate L text offers
so much that is. not found elsewhere, it is naturally a mine for
those who are not over particular. Klostermann, in the introduc
tion to his commentary on the books of Samuel, quoted in Driver,
Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. Hi, has expressed him
self as follows: "Let him who would advance science ....
accustom himself above all things to the use of .... Lagarde's
edition of the recension of Lucian." Theoretically, this has. some
justification — though it would be better to advise students to
begin by learning to make a scientific use of the ordinary Greek
text; in practice, there has thus far been little use made of the L
text in any part of the Old Testament which has tended notice
ably to advance science. Not one in twenty of all the " emendations"
of the Hebrew text hitherto made on the basis of Lucian readings
will survive any critical examination. And the opportunities of
doing harm through uncritical methods are much more numerous
here than elsewhere. I would suggest instead this maxim: Let
him who would advance science keep away as far as possible from

6°To give a few characteristic examples: In I Chron. 21:20 the Chronicler wrote
D^fcOnrTQ i as is attested both by MT and by Theodotion's transliteration (see above). The
Hebrew word presents no difficulty whatever in its context. Theodotion's transliteration
was replaced (as usual) in some MSS by the translation /cpu/Bo/ne^oi. In L this was cor
rupted (possibly under the influence of the Greek of II Sam. 24:20, 6ta7ropevo/iei'ovs,= Q"H23!f>
though the word there stands in an altogether different clause, and refers to other persons)
to Tropeuo/aepoi. On the basis of this reading Klostermann emends to D^DbniDQ
( ! not an equivalent of Tropeuo/iei'ot, nor graphically similar to MT, nor at all suited to this
context), which is approved by Kittel, Polychrome Bible and Comm. In Kittel's Biblia
Hebraica there is a note: "Read with L and II Sam. D^^QJV a specimen of textual
criticism which could hardly be surpassed.

One of the first emendations made by Guthe, in his Polychrome Ezra and Nehemiah, is
an insertion in the text of Ezr. 1:3, on the sole basis of a reading in the Lucian I Esdras.
But no one who is well acquainted with the L recension could doubt for a moment that its
6s irpotfvjueiTat TOV Tropeutfiji/at (2: 3) is a free editorial insertion in the Greek.

In Neh. 4:17, where the Hebrew reads D^n inbtU "ttPK (D^Sl a corruption of
T"PH cf. II Chron. 23 : 10), the L Greek has a characteristic double translation <cal

avSpa. bv aTre'crreAAoi' enl TO vfiwp, a.i'Tjp *al bn\ov avrov ets TO iJSwp. Guthe actually turns this two-

fold nonsense into Hebrew, inserting also an *T£5X and the two prepositions 53? and bfc$ ,
and substitutes it for MT ! Kittel also prints this newly made Hebrew in his critical appa
ratus, and Bertholet (Comm.) mentions it with respect.

These are merely typical instances, of three different kinds, one from each of the three
books. The list could be extended to include nearly all of the modern " critical " use of L
in Chron.-Ezr.-Neh.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF CHRONICLES-EZEA-NEHEMIAH 113

critical operations with the Lucian recension until he has learned
what it is and how to use it.

There is one purpose, however, for which the attention of
scholars really needs to be directed to the L text at once, and that
is, for the study of the Greek itself. There is doubtless much to
be learned from it as to the history of both Hebrew original and
the Greek versions, especially the Hexaplar, as well as in regard
to the primitive readings of the Syro-Palestinian recension. And
one of the first important undertakings of the criticism of the
Greek Old Testament should be the reconstruction, so far as it is
possible, of Theodotion's translation of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh.

V. THE CRITICAL PROCESS IN RESTORING THE SEMITIC TEXT

In investigating the Hebrew-Aramaic text of these books, in
the part of the history covered by I Esdras, the process (after
making sure of the traditional reading) must always be the
following.

1. Ascertain the Egyptian Greek text of the canonical recen
sion. Swete's edition usually (though not always) suffices for this
purpose ; and when it is used, the reading of codex A must always
be given the presumption of superiority over that of codices B
and 8 .

2. Compare the Syrian text (Lagarde's edition) of the same
book, bearing in mind its treacherous character. By the com
parison we can reach approximately the original reading of
'Theodotion's version.

3. By comparing (a) the reading thus gained with (6) the
Latin version of Jerome, and then with (c) the massoretic text,
we can approximate to — and in most cases reach with certainty—
the Heb.-Aram. text which was selected, edited,61 and made norma
tive by the Jewish scholars at the beginning of the second
century A. D.

4. Ascertain the reading of the Egyptian Greek text of /
Esdras, using for this purpose (a) the text of A and the allied
cursives, with which must be compared the witnesses to the
Hexaplar Greek, including (6) codex B, (c) the Syriac of Paul
of Telia, and (d) the Ethiopic version.

5. Compare the Syro-Palestinian I Esdras, using (a) Lagarde's
Greek (with the greatest caution, since this particular recension

61 See above, pp. 34 and 88.

114 EZRA STUDIES

has not only suffered the usual "Lucianic" alterations, but has
also been very extensively contaminated from the canonical Ezra),
(6) the old Latin version, and (c) the text preserved by Josephus
in his Antiquities. By thus comparing the Syrian with the
Egyptian readings of I Esdras it is usually possible to gain the
true text of the old Greek translation of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh.,
which was probably made shortly before the middle of the second
century B. c.

6. Regain the Heb.-Aram. text from which this translation was
made; and attempt, through comparison of this with the text of
the second century A. D., to restore the words originally written
by the Chronicler, or found by him in the sources which he used.
In reasoning from the old Greek version to the Semitic text which
lay behind it, one must bear in mind that this translation, while
truly a "close" one, is considerably more free than the later
renderings; also, that the Greek text has been much longer
exposed to accidental corruption than that of Theodotion's version.
Many readings which seem to point to variation in the Semitic
original are really due to changes which have taken place in the
Greek itself. And finally, in comparing the two parent Semitic
texts with each other, some account must be taken of their relative
correctness, so far as any general estimate is possible.

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF EZRA IN ITS ORIGINAL
FORM AND SETTING

I have shown in one of the previous chapters (see above, pp.
26 ff., 33 f.) that our canonical book of Ezra is a mutilated
recension, made by cutting out the (interpolated) Story of the
Three Youths together ivith a part of the Chronicler 's own narra
tive which had been so firmly welded to it by a redactor as now
to seem inseparable from it. I have also given (above, pp. 50-56)
a translation of the Story of the Three Youths in its primitive
form, and also of the two small "patches" which were composed
by the interpolator (pp. 57, 59) ; it now remains to restore this
portion of the Chronicler's history to its original condition,
printing it as it stood in the latter part of the third century B. c.,
before the story was interpolated.

The complete accomplishment of this task involves the retrans-
lation, from Greek into Hebrew, of an extended passage which is
now extant only in our "First Esdras." Such retranslations are
rarely worth while, for they can never reproduce the exact word
ing of the original, and hardly ever give much real assistance in
the cases where there is no Semitic text by which they can be
controlled. The present case is peculiar, however, in that the
Chronicler is the writer, and the matters with which he is deal
ing are nearly all such as he has dealt with repeatedly elsewhere.
No other writer in all the Old Testament shows so little variation,
in his choice of material and in his literary style, as the Chroni
cler; his mannerisms, stock phrases, lexical and grammatical
peculiarities, and favorite subjects, are everywhere conspicuous and
easily recognized. That is, we do have in this case original
Semitic texts by which the translation can be controlled. Nearly
everything which stands in this Greek fragment can be more or
less easily paralleled from other parts of the Chronicler's work.
When to this is added the fact that the Greek here is well pre
served and its meaning nowhere obscure, while we know it to be
in general a faithful rendering, it will be seen that a Hebrew text
can be restored concerning which it is possible to feel some con-

115

116 EZRA STUDIES

fidence that it everywhere stands near to what the Chronicler
himself wrote. For this reason, and also for the sake of demon
strating in this most tangible way that I Esdr. 4:476-56, 62 — 5:9
is a rendering from the Hebrew, and from the Hebrew of the
Chronicler, I have undertaken the retranslation. Without this
last step, my demonstration, as such, would be defective.

The portion of the Chronicler's history here printed and trans
lated includes II Chron. 36:20, 21; Ezra 1:1-11; I Esdras
4:476-56, 62, 63; 5:1-6; Ezra 2:l-3«, This all I believe to
be the work of the Chronicler's own hand, written originally in
this order, and substantially in the form here presented. Evidence
of this, beyond what has already been given, will appear in the
notes appended to the Hebrew text. There is no break in the
narrative, nor does anything appear to be missing — unless possibly
the subject of the verb in I Esdr. 4 : 62.

The proof of the Chronicler's authorship of the sections now
extant only in I Esdr. is abundant and of every variety, including
the constant emphasis laid upon those things which the Chronicler
alone, of all O. T. writers, makes prominent; the recurrence of his
favorite phrases, in just the forms which he habitually employs ; the
use of words and constructions found elsewhere only in his writings ;
and the plain traces of his unique style, seen even in this Greek
disguise. Moreover, the manner in which this section fills the
gap between the first two chapters of Ezra is proof of the strongest
kind, as I have shown in detail elsewhere (above, pp. 25-28).

I have made the extract begin at II Chron. 36:20, instead of
vs. 22, for two reasons. In the first place, vs. 22 ( = Ezra 1:1)
contains a reference to the quotation in vs. 21, which ought there
fore to be included, together with vs. 20, which introduces it.
And in the second place, the end of II Chron. and the beginning
of Ezra, originally written in one piece without any break, have
never been printed continuously, so far as I know ; and it is highly
desirable that this portion of the Chronicler's history should for
once appear in its primitive form. Most scholars now profess to
believe that Ezra, chap. 1 was written by the Chronicler in con
tinuation of II Chron., chap. 36, but in their mode of dealing with
the two "books" they persistently deny the fact.1 It very rarely
happens that the same man writes a commentary on both Chronicles

1 In Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift des A. T., the fact that the order of the Hebrew canon is
followed is no sufficient excuse for printing Ezra before Chronicles.

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF EZRA 117

and Ezra-Nehemiah, or even makes a careful study of both of these
divisions of the history. The commentator on Ezra-Nehemiah
finishes his work without troubling himself to examine I and II
Chron., and vice versa — as though one should comment on half of
the book of Ezekiel without closely examining the other half.
The present misunderstanding of Ezr.-Neh. is due in no small
measure to this traditional blunder of method. The occurrence
of the passage Ezr. l:l-3a in two places is recognized as the
result of an arbitrary rearrangement of the history, made long
after the Chronicler's day;2 but one scholar after another treats
the passage, in either place, as though he had a lingering feeling
that it was actually written twice over by its author, or else, that
it was "taken over" from one book into another. The climax, in
this regard, seems to me to be reached by Kittel, in his edition of
the Hebrew text of Chronicles for the Polychrome Bible, where
he prints this passage in light red (the color used for sections
"derived from passages preserved in our present O. T."!), thus
obscuring as completely as possible the true state of the case. It
will hardly be superfluous, therefore, to print the verses for once in
their original context.3

2 The verses in question were not, as the textbooks say, "added to the end of Chronicles"
(as though the book had ever had another ending!). Whoever first cut off the Ezr.-Neh.
portion made it begin at II Chron. 36: 22 because with this verse Cyrus and the new era were
introduced. Then, when the preceding portion of the history was also set apart as a book
by itself, it was made to overlap the other by a few sentences; not "in order to provide for
the book an auspicious ending," but either in order to preserve evidence of the fact that the
two " books" were originally parts of the same whole, and that this was the point of their
juncture, or else merely as the result of a copyist's carelessness. In the history of ancient
literature there are some striking parallels of this latter kind. Thus Freudenthal,.He?tercts£-
ische Studien, 1875, p. 200, speaking of the MS tradition of the works of Eusebius: " Wenn
aber am Ende des ersten und zweiten Buches der praep. die langen Einleitungen zum zweiten
und drittenBuche abgeschrieben, an ersterStelle sogar mitten im Satze abgebrochen
we r den, so wird man eiue solche Plumpheit nicht Eusebios, sondern seinen Abschreibern
zur Last legen. Sie 1st aber in alle Handsc h riften eingedrungen , weil alle
Abschriften eines Urcodex sind." The reason why II Chron. ends with the word b)P1 ,
without finishing the sentence, may be either that this is the first possible stopping-
place after the mention of Cyrus, or else that this word happened to end the line,
or the page, in the manuscript which first made the separation.

3To illustrate further the current misinterpretation of the double occurrence of the
two verses in question: Kittel, Bilcher der Chronik (in Nowack's Handkommentar), p. 178,
on II Chron. 36:22 f., writes: "Die Worte finden sich wOrtlich auch als Anfang des kanon-
ischen Buchs Esr. l:l-3a. Einheit des Verfassers beider Biicher .... folgt daraus noch
nicht. Wie beliebt diese Worte .... waren. zeigt auch III Esr. 2: 1 ff., ohne dass man dar
aus weitergehende Schlusse ziehen darf. Seine urspriingliche Stelle hat das Stuck (wie das
Abbrechen mitten im Satze Esras durch den Chronisten zeigt) bei Esra, mag es nun durch
den Chronisten selbst oder einen Spateren hierher gekommen sein."

And in the Introduction, p. vi : "Immerhin kann es als bedeutsam angesehen werden,
dass diese alten Erganzer sich fur ihren Zweck [viz. the purpose of giving the book of Chron. a
propitious ending] geradecm das Buch Esra wandten" (the italics are mine). It would be
difficult to give more misinformation in this amount of space. I have quoted the passages
somewhat fully because they represent a view which is widely held.

118 EZRA STUDIES

A word in regard to the punctuation of the Hebrew text
which here follows. Punctuation is as indispensable in Semitic
as in English or any other language, and it is time that some
usable system were adopted for our editions of Old Testament
writings. Unpointed and unpunctuated Hebrew selections are occa
sionally useful — just as unpointed Greek texts are often used—
for pedagogic purposes ; but when the books of the Old Testament
are intended not for classroom drill, but for the multitude who
read them for the sake of their contents, to leave them without
punctuation is to leave them half edited. So long as the masso-
retic text is left untouched, one can make a shift of using the
division of clauses and phrases made by the "accents;" since
these, though always inexact and often misleading, may be used
as a poor substitute for a system of punctuation. But the accents
are not always correctly placed; and, what is worse, it is not pos
sible to rearrange them at pleasure. It occasionally happens, for
example, that the massoretic verse-division is incorrect. This does
not, however, justify any modern scholar in moving the 'sof
pdsilq (!) to another place. The sof pdsiiq belongs to a compli
cated and very carefully wrought system, in which the disarrange
ment of any one part affects the rest. A Hebrew text in which
the verse-dividers are shifted, while the remaining massoretic
accents are left as they were before, is a monstrosity. The same
is true of the attempt to shift the other accents. It often happens
that the chief pause within the verse, marked in the traditional
punctuation by the athnachtd (A), has been wrongly indicated,
through misunderstanding of the text. But moving the athnachtd
to another place is like altering music by moving an occasional
bar one or two notes forward or back. The massoretic notation
was made for all time, and ought not to be tampered with. To
endeavor to make use of it in our modern emended texts of the Old
Testament is to attempt the impossible — and the undesirable.

It would be an ill-advised proceeding, moreover, to retain a
few of these signs (such as the sof pdsiiq, the athnachtd, and the
zdqef), using them in the place of modern punctuation marks;
first, because they are not at all adapted to such use, and second,
because they already have a distinct use of their own, for which
it is important that they should be kept.4 They are historically

*The athnachta, for example, properly belongs in the middle of Gen. 1:1; but there is
no place there for punctuation in our sense of the term.

THE FIRST CHAPTER or EZRA 119

of real value, and — like the rest of the massoretic notation — will
continue to be useful for purposes of reference.5 But they ought
to be an occasional help, not a perpetual encumbrance. Next to
a Hebrew grammar constructed on modern scientific principles,
the chief desideratum of Old Testament studies at the present day
is an O. T. text printed and punctuated in a way suited to the
needs of modern readers and scholars. Not primarily an emended
text, or at least, not altered from the massoretic except in the
comparatively small number of cases where both the corruption
and the remedy are practically certain ; but one in which the page
is freed from the mass of bewildering and unnecessary "points"
and "accents," and some use, in the way of punctuation, is made
of the Hebrew studies which have been pursued since the early
Middle Ages.6

Since the Old Testament writings are now, and presumably
always will be, cited by chapter and verse ; and since these com
positions are, in fact, made up of comparatively short sentences,
with which the present "verses" are generally intended to corre
spond; it is important that the end of the verse should be very
distinctly marked. I have therefore chosen the sign o for this
purpose. The simple period (.) can then be used for the full
stop within the verse, wherever this is necessary. For the divi
sion of the sentence into its component parts, the reversed comma
(<) and semicolon (;) will usually suffice.

5 To be sure, their original and proper use, as a system of musical notation, is now not
understood at all. As for their serving to divide clauses and phrases, it must be admitted
that they do it very poorly; indeed, they are in their nature incompatible with any strict
division according to the requirements of sense and rhetoric. For instance, they divide as
a rule dichotomously, whether the sentence is thus constructed or not. Punctuation marks
should show to the eye the logical relation of the members of the sentence or period; this
the massoretic notes rarely can do. If one should set the first chapter of Genesis to music,
and then print the English text without punctuation proper, but use for that purpose the
bars and double-bars of the music printed above each line, the result would be much like
what we have throughout our O. T.

6 The Biblia Hebraica recently edited by a number of scholars under the general super
vision of Professor R. Kittel shows a curious mixture of the obsolete with the modern. It
is half Massoretic Bible, and half something else. It very properly leaves the last two
words of I Sam. 10:27, for example, where they are instead of making them the beginning
of 11 : 1, as no one doubts that they originally were. And yet in every part of the O. T. which
now happens to be recognized by these editors as poetry a separation into lines is made,
such as would certainly have astonished the massoretes. This division is based on individ
ual judgment, which is of course now and then mistaken; the separation of lines being
made in the wrong place, or passages originally written as poetry (such as Isa. 44:9-20) being
here invidiously set apart as prose. All the bewildering rubbish of "accents" is retained,
and yet in the footnotes frequent proposals are made to shift these signs to other places,
treating them as punctuation marks. If it was thought desirable to print the Massoretic
Bible once more, would it not have been better to do simply that, leaving modern ideas and
scholarship to be embodied in an edition of another sort, such as would be made in the case
of any Greek classic?

120 EZRA STUDIES

THE CHRONICLER'S NARRATIVE OF THE RETURN
FROM THE EXILE

vm <bbm bs uinn -2 rr^n '(Q'nto -jba) b:^_ se20
mrr nm nitf bb 21 o ens nsob? bE 12

.nraizi nE©n rr bD ^rviraTz? ns -pan

Ezra < rr/-T e*'3^ Hirr "m rvib^b ?c^3 ib'j niiiijb nri^ ri'iijii i1

rl-11 1

^b-j b» b*ip ^"l tC^is -]b:j w'nb m-i nx mrr "i

— • —,..*..;— ._'. o, _„__ . nL .
Ml ( U /flJwi I » txCs i Ml i J i

al have inserted the words D^IUJD "jbx^ here, from the preced
ing context, merely for convenience.

b b2Q is of course the country Babylonia, not the city Babylon.

cThe quotation from "Jeremiah" evidently includes the whole
of the rest of the verse, not merely the next clause, or the next
two clauses (as in Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift des A. T.). The
part relating to the "70 years" is found in Jer. 25:12; 29:10,
while the remainder occurs in our Bible only in Lev. 26:34f. ;
cf. vs. 43. It is possible, but not probable, that the Book of
Jeremiah in the form known to the Chronicler actually contained
all this. What is much more likely is, that he made up the
citation freely, without caring to be exact. The identity of the
prediction in Leviticus with that in Jeremiah would seem to
any exegete of his school to be assured by the designation of the
period of exile as a "Sabbath," coupled with the significant four
fold repetition of the number seven in vss. 18, 21, 24, and 28.
Thus it would be quite natural to combine the two passages in a
single loose "quotation," which was not intended to be direct,
as the past tenses show.

dOn the computation of the "seventy years," see Note A, at
the end of this chapter.

eThe evidence, including MT in II Chron. 36:22, strongly
favors "^52 instead of ^3/J .

fOur massoretic text has the original reading here, that of
I Esdr. is inferior. The Chronicler is especially fond of making
these foreign king& apply to Yah we the simple title "God of
Heaven;" thus, for example, 6:9, 10 (Darius II) ; 7:12, 21, 23
(Artaxerxes II). See also the note on the last words of vs. 3.

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF EZRA 121

T2 vnbtf *rr <g^y bM osa ^J3 orrnrm ^

<-iaHSDn bsv

anm qcDa tapa
rvhan ^ao ^^V ©DbEVra n-irs DTibsn n^nb nai^n D?
s n^nb^n

gThe L text of I Esdr. adds at this point 6? TrpoOv^elrat,
rov TropevBrjvai^ i. e., the interpretative expansion which is so
eminently characteristic of this particular recension. See above,
pp. 108, 112. Guthe, in the Polychrome Bible, translates the
words into Hebrew and inserts them in his text; a strange pro
ceeding.

hAt this point the book II Chron. ends.

'Guthe (op. cii.) says of these last four words that they "give
prima facie the impression of a gloss." One wonders to whom
they could give such an impression, and what manner of man it
could be who would append such a "gloss" as this. No one could
be so likely to write these words as the Chronicler himself. The
comparison of these verses, 2 and 3, with the beginning of the
letter of Artaxerxes II, Ezr. 7:12-15, is interesting. There, also,
the king is made by the Chronicler to employ first the term "God
of Heaven," and then on the next occasion to vary this with "the
God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem."

k1L>taD") "goods" is of course not to be "emended" to 12Jj"i ,
merely because I Esdr. happens to mistranslate it in vs. 6 (here
in vs. 4 there is a double rendering). "£l!D"l is a favorite word
with the Chronicler, and is exactly what is needed here, between
the "silver and gold" and the "beasts" (which here meant riding-
beasts, cf. Neh. 2:12, 14).

'The characteristic use of the preposition b (= "namely") in
blDb ought not to be misunderstood. It is exactly the same use
which we find in classical Arabic (Wright, Grammar*, II, 151 C) ,
and is closely allied to its use with the object of the verb in the
Aramaic dialects, and to the construction which is employed in
7:14 (see the note there). The meaning "with reference fo"
lies at the root of all these uses and those allied to them. This
extended use of the preposition b , in a considerable variety of
ways, is one of the most marked characteristics of the Chronicler's

122 EZKA STUDIES

Dprnirzc bsv oobwa TJJ« rnrr rrn n^ m:nb rrib^b

©awin pbs b?' »
.. - .

s-ora q*rnn TJK <mrr rrn ^ na &m'n

style; see my Composition of Ezra-Neh., pp. 16, 18 (below), 21
(top). The attempt of Haupt, Polychrome Bible, to explain
the b, here and in vs. 11, as an "emphatic particle" is a mis
taken one.

The omission of the relative pronoun T£fc* here, after b^ , is
another mark of the Chronicler's hand. Of. the end of vs. 6.

mMT DJTT2, Ipin , "they assisted with their hands" a reading
which is possible, but improbable. The familiar idiom "strength
ened their hands," DtTT IpTH , is almost certainly what was
intended (cf. e. g. Ezr. 6:22), and in this idiom the presence of
the preposition 3 is forbidden by usage and analogy. The reading
of MT is merely the result of a copyist's carelessness.

nln this verse the list given in vs. 4 is repeated, the words
standing in the same order; and the use of the article with
each noun in the second list leads us to suppose that the
two were intended to be identical. This fact, coupled with the
testimony of I Esdr. (eV jracriv, eV apyvpia) KOI /ere) makes it
certain that we should read "C32 b'SD, in place of ~C5 ^blDQ .
Similarly Guthe.

°The emendation of *ab to 2lb (very often used by the
Chronicler), following I Esdr. <w? TrXe/o-rat?,7 has already been
made by Klostermann (Gesch. des Volkes Israel, p. 229) and
others, and is indispensable. The verse needs no other emenda
tion, beyond changing the massoretic "punctuation." Guthe
makes three other alterations, no one of which can be permitted.
That the "costly presents" ( rfijfM , cf. II Chron. 32:23) con-
stituted the "free-will offering" mentioned in vs. 4 is made as
plain as possible by the verb.

pThe relative pronoun is again omitted after b!D ; see the
comment on vs. 5.

qMT has fcT^n here also, as well as at the beginning of the
verse. It is very probable, however, that we should read X'OH ,

i The eiiflu? in the L text, at the end of the verse, is merely the result of dittography of
the preceding 6 voOs.

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF EZRA 123

b? ens "b:j TZJTO oarsW

rrnna

since this is the verb which the Chronicler regularly uses in
speaking of this event (II Chron. 36:7, 18), and the one which
seems to have been rendered here by the old Greek version
(I Esdr. 2:9 ^er^ve^icevf cf. 1:39 aTrevey/cas — II Chron. 36:7
fcT^n , and 1:51 aTrrjvey/cav = the same in II Chron. 36:18.
Cf. also 6:25 = Ezr. 5:14, and 8:59 = Ezr. 8:30). I can see
no justification for the reading TC»1 , which Guthe proposes
here.

rT by means "by the hand of," or "under the direction of;"
so I Chron. 25:2 ",0£ T b? , "under the direction of Asaph;"
cf. II Chron. 26:13, etc. There is no "ellipsis" here, and the
text is sound. I Esdr. has TrapeScotcev avra MLOpLSdry, and
Batten (Polychrome Bible, Ezra, p. 57) asserts that "in Ezr.
8:26, 33 TrapeSay/cev stands for bp"u3 ," and emends accordingly.
Bertholet, Esra und Nehemia, quotes this with hesitating ap
proval. But the statement is true in neither one of the pas
sages cited; in the former (I Esdr. 8:56) the equivalent of the
verb bp'ifl is o-njcra?, and in the other (I Esdr. 8:61) its equiva
lent is (TTaOev. The complementary verb (7ra/oeSo)«;e^, Trape&oOrj}
is merely added by the translator, as happens over and over again
in this version.

sOn the name "Sheshbazzar," and its rival forms, especially
"Sanabassar," see Note B, at the end of this chapter.

lThe noun bt^3X is a loan-word from the Greek, as is quite
generally recognized. It is probably not, however, from /cdpra\-
Xo?, "basket," which is quite unsuitable here (the only place of
its occurrence), but from tcparrip, "bowl."
.UMT D"EbE ; see Note C.

VMT D^sbn'J is evidently corrupt. The word is otherwise
unknown, and the only suggested meaning, "knives," is not
suited to this context. Theodotion had the same reading before
him, but did not know what it meant; he simply follows the root-
meaning of the verb ~jbn in his 7rap7j\\ajiJL€va. The old Greek
version, preserved in I Esdr., renders by 6vio-fcai, which is else-

8 The ^erriyayev of Cod. B is of course a mere copyist's blunder.

124 EZRA STUDIES

rviata »^» WD Dbtf -CD ^ISD tO^bus nni

'i nb?n bDn .'nrjj

©obwtrb bzura nbfan '

where used to translate fris? or ftl'n/TJ , but seems in all cases to
be merely a non-committal rendering. The lists of names of
these costly vessels and implements given in the older O. T. books
generally contain the words o-Trov&ela, </>taXat, OvidKai (so I Esdr.
here; cf. also I Mace. 1:22), to which are sometimes added one
or more of the names Tpv(3\la, Xa/3/8e?, Trvpela, eTrapvarpiSes — all
more or less uncertain as to their Hebrew equivalents. See for
example Exod. 25:29; 37:16, 20 (23) ; Num. 4:7; I Kings 7: 50 =
II Chron. 4:21 (where the Greek has omitted several words by
mistake). There is one Hebrew word, occurring in each of these
lists, of which D^sbn/J might easily be a corruption, namely
D^npb'J (Greek Xa/3/Se?; e7rapV(rrpiB&: in I Kings 7:49?). See
Exod. 25:38; 37:23; Num. 4:9; I Kings 7:49; II Chron. 4:21.
This may be accepted tentatively as the original reading here. If
it is correctly pointed D^Hpb'J (dual), it probably means "snuffers."
According to II Chron. 4:21, these were made for Solomon "of
the purest gold."

WMT D^EE -C3 ; see Note C.

xWe have no right to insert the article (D^bSJl), as is done
by Guthe, Bertholet, and others. To appeal to "LXX" and
" I Esdras" is of course not permissible. The Greek translators
could not avoid using the article. The use of bD with a plural
noun determined in fact though not in form is familiar in poetry,
e. g. nlanbti bD in Isa. 28:8; other examples in the Lexicon of
Brown-Driver-Briggs. The Chronicler has precisely the same
.thing in 10:3, D-fflS bD .

yThis is the same use of the preposition b as that described
above, in the note on bDb in vs. 5.

ZI have restored to the Hebrew here the two numerals which
follow JniN'J . On the numbers of this list, and the emendations
here made, see Note C, at the end of this chapter.

aThe use of this infinitive is thoroughly characteristic of the
Chronicler's style. Guthe's "emendation" here, based profess
edly (but not really) on I Esdr., is a singular performance.

THE FIKST CHAPTER OF EZRA 125

s cb? rrna» b^n "TITO ib nnri 447&]

b::

-pDiiba nujabi k"«n "a? mins 'bDbV8 ©obicm rri
5ian" rsi tDbETr bK '"p:abn -pa D-na -2? aranb1 «
rn-irr b&< nn«ban i D^bin D^n^n b^b nn^v9 © Tr

bThe interpolator changed this to TSV*n , besides making the
other slight alterations which were necessary; see above, pp. 57 ff.

cAs in II Chron. 30:1; Neh. 2:7, etc. Of. also Ezr. 4:7, 11,
17, 18, etc.

d Rendered by olteovdpos by this same translator in I Esdr.
8:64 (-Ezr. 8:36).

e Rendered by roTra/o^? also Dan. 3:2 f. (same translator); cf.
also vs. 48 in this chapter. The most common rendering is
eTrapxos, I Esdr. 8:64; 6:3, 7, etc. But there is a good deal of
freedom in the translation of these titles, and the textual tradition
of a succession of them is likely to be untrustworthy. Certainty
is impossible.

f "T£ is often translated by cn-par^o? ; so Dan. 10: 13, 20 (twice) ;
cf. also II Chron. 32:21, etc.

gCf. Dan. 2:48 (Theod.) and the Heb. of Ezr. 9:2. Possibly
these last two. titles should be transposed. If the original Hebrew
text of the verse really contained four such nouns (as seems highly
probable from vs. 49, where they appear in the contrary order),
then it is pretty certain that these which I have given were the
four.

h Of ten used thus by the Chronicler; cf. II Chron. 2:7; Ezr.
2:63; Neh. 7:65; 8:14, 15; 10:31; 13:1, 19, 22. In Neh. 2:7 we
have a very close parallel to this passage.

'The Chronicler's favorite and characteristic way of continu
ing, with the use of the substituted b . Cf. for example Ezr. 7:28:
"before the king and his counselors and before all (b-bl) the
officers," etc. So also 7:14.

kSee my remarks on the rendering of this phrase in I Esdras,
above, p. 83.

'These words are quoted in Ezr. 3:7.

mCf. Ezr. 6:8; I Esdr. 6:27.

"As in Ezr. 1:1, and commonly in the latest O. T. books in
speaking of the Persian kingdom.

126 EZRA STUDIES

©Dm*? rbtf ais" Kb ^arran&n nnai pel ptrVi bs t'^rrn
r^ t'rrro xbn onb rrnn -wiri" ITDK -p»n
nnbi51 oD^nrrn TE

wDnbxn rra
nb arrb? cn.<2E'<bnvn DV naran b?

°This word does not happen to be used by the Chronicler out
side this chapter; it is pretty certainly the one employed by him
here, however.

PCf. Dan. 2:10 (Swoon;?), 15; also Ezr. 4:20, etc.

qCf. with these titles the list in vs. 47, and see the notes there.

rMore likely than b*, as the meaning is "enter with authority,"
rather than "attack" as an enemy.

5 Of. the use of the same verb, rendered by SiaicpaTovaiv. in the
second half of the verse.

4With this clause cf. Ezr. 7:24 = 1 Esdr. 8:22, a passage also
composed by the Chronicler.

UI Chron.-27:25; cf. also Neh. 6:2.

v Undoubtedly the verbal noun which was used, though it is
not found elsewhere in the Chronicler's writings.

wln I Esdr. TO lepdv is the standing equivalent of D^nb^H IV2 ;
see for examples 1:8 (II Chron. 35:8); 7:7 (Ezr. 6:17); 8:13,
17, 22 ( = Ezr. 7:16, 19, 24); 8:59, 64 ( = Ezr. 8:30, 36); 8:78,
88( = Ezr. 9:9; 10:1); 9:1, 6(=Ezr. 10:6, 9). The equivalent
of blDTl in I Esdr. is usually vads.

xSo also 8:19 (Ezr. 7:22), and cf. especially I Chron. 29:7.

yCf. Neh. 10:35, 36, etc.; and see the note on DTD, DV , etc.,
in my Comp. of Ezr. -Neh., p. 25. For the trans., cf. I Esdr. 5:50;
6:29, KCL& wepav.

zThe construction rriD^flb 13 is also possible — for the Chron
icler, but for no other O. T. writer. See Driver's list (in his
Introd.) of constructions characteristic of the Chronicler, no. 38.
But the finite verb — the usual construction — is more probable.

aThe Greek translator misunderstood this infinitive. He sup
posed it to be a continuation of finbl , vs. 51, and to be governed
by SWI , vs. 49; whereas it is, on the contrary, a continuation
of "pllb , and dependent on nnb . The mistake was made all
the easier by the position of the infinitive T^pnb , which the
translator seems to have connected with the following words;
see below. With KapTrovadai as the rendering of n^lb^n , cf . the

THE FIRST CHAPTER or EZRA 127

rrrr

translation of tlbl^ by /cdpTrcofjia, Exod. 30:9; 40:6, 10, etc., and
by fcdpTTcow, Lev. 4:10, 18; Job 42:8. The Syr.-Hex. renders
here by . ^Vm .

bSee the note on JlD'Jn PM in vs. 51. One of the Chronicler's
favorite phrases.

c Another word which the Chronicler is fond of using, and
ei>ro\r) is one of the usual equivalents. Cf. Neh. 10:33; 11:23;
13:5; II Chron. 29:25, etc. This idea of the ritual as definitely
prescribed by divine law is always made prominent by the
Chronicler; cf. also II Chron. 35:12 f.; Neh. 8:15, 18; 10:35, 37,
etc. The construction with b^ here, as in Neh. 11:23.

dThe usual equivalent of Trpoo-fyepeiv, cf. e. g. 1:10 (II Chron.
35:12); 6:30 (Ezr. 6:10); 8:63 (Ezr. 8:35).

elt is generally supposed that this verse speaks of a command
ment of seventeen (!) daily offerings on the altar. Commenta
tors usually content themselves with wondering whence the writer
of the passage obtained his information; so e. g., Fritzsche,
Comm., echoed by Guthe in Kautzsch's Apokryphen. But the
e-m-a /cal Se/ca is found only in the Egyptian Greek and the ver
sions made from it,9 and it is not present in either the Lucian
recension or the earlier Syrian Greek represented by the Latin
version. It therefore plainly originated in some clerical blunder
in an early Egyptian Greek MS. The original translation was, in
all probability, /cal eVl TO Ovcnacnripiov 6\oKavTO)fjLara /capTrovcrOai
/caO"1 r)}JLepav, /caOa e^ovaiv evro\ijv9 en &e /cal Trpoacfrepeiv a\\a
rakavra Se/ca Kar* evLavrov. This would account for both the
Syrian and the Egyptian readings, since the Trpoa-fyepeiv, wrongly
used by the translator (see the note above), was sure to be con
nected soon with eWoX^i/, whereupon the corruption of en $e teal
to e7rra teal Be/ca would be very easy. Observe that the Lucian
text inserts Trpocrfyepeiv a second time, besides making other stylistic
alterations in the usual manner.

fSee the note on the same phrase in vs. 51.

gMore likely than nVPlb . This is a construction often substi
tuted for the infinitive by the Chronicler; see, e.g., Neh. 2:8;
10:31; 13:1.

hAs in Jer. 34:8. See further the note on vs. 49, above.

9It is found in the Hexaplar Syriac, though not in Lagarde's edition ; see the reading
of the MS which I have published above, p. 5. It is also in the Ethiopia.

128 EZRA STUDIES

D-:nbn bs^i54 ©"Dmpbi Dnb «T?n maab

om "DTmr/j ran -ISK mo^nbn rerdi 'nrsn «ro(54) D"bi?n

T T *" V T ~" T

niicm rvan qnbr P-IE« Din TO <°DnT"j nnb nnD D^bbv5
'D-pbn crib nnb sro Tjn n^ sDn/jiiJn bsbv56 ©rni:nnb

' T T *

for nb? ; cf. 8:1 (Ezr. 7:1, 6), and Trp
for nbrj , Josh. 15:7.

kThis is of course the place for the verse-division.

lrFhis verse and the following verses are taken up with the
Chronicler's own pet interests. nD"J here exactly as in II Chron.
31:4, where the whole passage (vss. 2-4) affords a close parallel.
Cf. also Neh. 12:44, 47; 13:10. The Greek rendering %oWt'a,
"wage," is an excellent one.

m These "priestly robes" were very important in the eye of the
Chronicler. Cf. Ezr. 2:69; Neh. 7:69, 71. The form of the
phrase here can hardly have been other than the one which I have
written. For the Greek rendering cf. I Esdr. 5:44.

nCf. Ezr. 8:17; Neh. 10:37; II Chron. 31:2, etc.

°Cf. especially Neh. 13:10, and see the note on the preceding
verse.

p For this form of words cf . II Chron. 6 : 5.

^The Chronicler uses both the qal (I Chron. 28:20; JI Chron.
8: 16, etc.) and the piel (II Chron. 31: 7) of nb5 .

rThe niphal infinitive, as in Hag. 1:2; Zech. 8:9. Cf.
also I Chron. 22:19; Ezr. 1:11, and the hophal infin. in Ezr.
3:11.

sCf. Neh. 11:19; 13:22. The Chronicler intends here his
Levitical "gate-keepers;" see also II Chron. 23:4-7; Neh. 7:1;
12: 25, etc., and the following note. For him, the Levites are the
first in war as well as in peace. Josephus (xi, 3, 8) interprets
correctly: rot? </>uXa£t 77)9 TroXew? real rov vaov.

lThe most likely equivalent of /cX^/aou? on general grounds;
see also especially Lev. 6: 10 (17) ; Deut. 18:8, where the same
word is used and the same thing is meant, namely the allotment
made to the Levites.

u'O-»/ra>wa, "wages," is too general a term to give any certainty
in retranslating. fYl'j/J is perhaps as good as anything, see
II Chron. 31:19; but tVTJE (Neh. 12:44,47; 13:10) or

THE FIRST CHAPTER or EZRA 129

ri62

rvftjb68

"from irvn onb -jro "D «wD*TTrha nba

T T T T I ~ T

rvn

(Neh. 13:5, cf. 10:33, and the rabbinical use of the word) would
also do very well.

At this point the interpolator made his second insertion, vss.
57-61 ; see above, pp. 58 f.

vlt is of course possible that the subject of the verb (such as
D2H b^, or nbljH ^2 b5) originally followed here, but was
removed by the interpolator. This supposition is not necessary,
however.

w As so often in the writings of the Chronicler. This clause has
a close parallel in I Chron. 29:20, Tlbx mrrb bn^H bD soiyi
DJTraK , cf . Ezr. 7 : 27, etc.

x This phrase does not occur elsewhere, and my rendering is
merely tentative. "A^ecrt? = nHDH in Esth. 2: 18, and Symmachus
translates »T"iT) by avetris in Ex. 8:11 (15). The Latin has
remissionem et refrigerium.

ySee the note on vs. 51.

zAs in II Chron. 6:33; 7:14, etc.

a 'E/ca)0a)v%ovTo (elsewhere in the O. T. only Esth. 3:15) is
plainly one of the free renderings so often found in this version.
The Hebrew verb must have been VTSizn , cf. II Chron. 29:9,
36; 30:25; Neh. 12:43 f., etc.

bFor this combination, "songs and rejoicing," see Neh. 12:27;
II Chron. 23:18, etc. min in I Chron. 16:27; Neh. 8:10; Ezr.
6:16 (written by the Chronicler).

c So very frequently in the Chronicler; e. g., II Chron. 7:9;
30:21; 35:17; Ezr. 6:22; Neh. 8:18.

dThus for example Ezr. 7:1.

e One of the favorite phrases of this writer. Cf . Ezr. 2:59; 7 : 28 ;
8 : 1 ; 10 : 16, and for this form of the words I Chron. 7 : 7, 40 ; 24 : 4.

fFor the use of the preposition (Greek /card) cf. I Esdr. 1:5
(= II Chron. 35:5), etc.

*For the servants and the cattle cf. Ezr. 2:65 (same Greek
words in I Esdr. 5:41) and Ezr. 1:4, 6.

130 EZRA STUDIES

'x kzrirnb -p tlpb» D"izhs

T TT

D-snai nn"Tizh n-pntaa Drrna bsv ©"Dibizh

h Changed by the interpolator to "Darius;" see the note on
4:47.

1 The numeral following the noun, after the manner so common
in the Chronicler; Ges.-Kautzsch § 134, c. The "horsemen" as in
Ezr. 8:22 (Chr.); Neh. 2:9.

k The characteristic 'b "12 , so sure a mark of the Chronicler's
hand; see my Composition of Ezra-Neh., p. 19. For aTro/cara-
O-TTJO-CU = Zrirn , cf. 6:25 (Ezr. 6:5).

1 The preposition b as in Ezr. 2: 1, etc.

mlt is obvious that the Heb. text here was slightly corrupt;
vs. 2 should end at this point. The Chronicler hardly meant to
say that King Cyrus sent a military band of musicians along with
the returning exiles; those who played the instruments were the
children of Israel, as usual. Ha£fev is of course pntZJ ; and this
verb in the sense "play upon" a musical instrument is
construed with 3, . The source of the text-corruption is thus
evident: The eye of the copyist strayed from mb'M to D^TTin ,
etc., just below; he accordingly added these three nouns, and then
returned and wrote the remainder of the clause. Cf. I Chron.
13:8 (II Sam. 6:5); 15:29; 25: 6 f . ; II Chron. 23:18; 29:28;
Neh. 12:27. The Chronicler's especial fondness for this musical
pageant is well known.

n Generally used in these lists of instruments just as though
TT23 were the name of one of them. Moucrt/cwz^ also in 5: 57 (59),
but there "nfl is not found in our Hebrew.

°AuXo? for D^b^b^ also in II Sam. 6:5. The Chronicler is
so fond of the instrument D^flbil/J that it was probably not miss
ing here.

pThe Greek has: /cal e7roirj(rev aurot? crvvavafBrivai /-ter' eiceivwv,
which is nonsense, and a particularly good example of mis
translation. The Greek translator read DFIX Dnbizft , "and he

T • _ T T '

sent them with them," instead of the correct DfiS DnblEl , "and
sending them" (on their way). The piel of nblZJ is the stem
elsewhere used with this meaning, and that fact may have misled
him. Josephus, it is to be noticed, emends the clause rightly.

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF EZRA 131

nK tvab ,qo^n D^an triEis nbxv

ww* <"pna ";n cnra ^p "
i/j/j TTI traa tbarnbsTD p bnni; vlh Dp*i <nnir> p

• T v T \ 'TT~ T T

Tcn3 -rb?j uniD n^b:jb w train rain6 ©n^rr tmzto •

T 1 ' " T T -

[oy-iznnb ina

«Cf. Ezr. 2:1; 8:1; Neh. 7:4-6; 12:1, etc.

rThus (nraTpiaC) our translator renders this same expression in
the two other cases where it came before him: 5: 37 ( = Ezr. 2: 59)
and 9: 16 ( = Ezr. 10: 16). The Chronicler is fond of the phrase,
using it in II Chron. 31: 17 and more than a dozen other passages.

sSee the note on vs. 1.

1 This translator uses ^ep^ap^ia for TDJTm also in 8 : 28
(— Ezr. 8:1), and this Hebrew word is the only one to expect
here. The Chronicler is the only O. T. writer to use it; and this
particular form (hithpael infin. with third plur. suffix) occurs
also in I Chron. 4 : 33 ; 7 : 5, 7, 9, 40 ; 9 : 22 ; II Chron. 31:16; Ezr.
8:1. A striking instance.

u Greek simply ol tepet?; but the preposition probably stood in
the original, and was dropped by accident because of the D just
preceding. It is characteristic of the Chronicler that he should
mention Jeshua, the representative of the priests, before Zerub-
babel, on this occasion when they are first introduced.

v Greek, KOI Icoa/ceLfJi 6 rov Zopo/3a/3eX (the L text, character
istically, 6 teal Zo/3o/3a/3eX!). The corruption of the Hebrew
underlying this was very slight: the last two letters of the name
"Seraiah" were dittographed; and then, of necessity, the 12
was read p . The text thus became nn*HE p

. For the Dp^l— which must, in any case,
have been the origin of this Icoa/cetfji — cf. Ezr. 1:5. For this
use of the preposition (almost a "2 of accompaniment") cf.
II Chron. 22:1, D^D == "bringing the Arabs with them,"
cf. 21:16. If it were not for this exact parallel — and for the
fact that the Chronicler is notoriously a law unto himself in the
use of prepositions — I should have emended in some other way;
for example, bnmtt *Wn Dp^l .

wSo, e. g., Ezr. 3:8. In this verse the hand of the interpolator
appears for the last time: see above, p. 61.

xThe phrase used so often by the Chronicler.

y Greek, roO TT/OCOTOV IJLTJVO^ (arbitrarily revised in L). This is

132 EZRA STUDIES

r. 2:1-3 j < n "Dn n*o 21

<rmm

mam mi?2 rranD m- bnsni a:? SI

T '

not the result of mistranslation, but of corruption of the Greek.
The original reading was ry Trpwry rov MVOS. The T?; before rov
was dropped by accident, and the article was then made to agree.

The reason why the excision of the interpolation was made at
just this point is obvious; see also the statement of the case
above, p. 34.

zThese three names are given correctly in Neh. 7:7, as the
comparison of I Esdr. shows.

a Corrected according to Neh. and I Esdr.

bThe interpretative addition in I Esdr. 5:8, rwv irpo^ov^evaiv
avTwv, probably had no Hebrew original. Of. the similar addition
in vs. 9.

The verse must end at this point, not after the following clause.

TRANSLATION

nchron. 362°And (the Chaldean king) carried away to Babylonia those
left from the sword, and they were servants to him and his sons
until the rise of the kingdom of Persia, 21in fulfilment of the word
of YahwS by the mouth of Jeremiah, 'until the land had enjoyed
her sabbaths; all the days that she lay waste she rested, to the
completion of seventy years.'

Ezr. i:i-n I1 But in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in fulfilment
of the word of Yahwe by the mouth of Jeremiah, Yahwe stirred
the heart10 of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he sent a proclamation
through all his kingdom, even in writing, saying: 2Thus saith
Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth are given
to me from Yahwe the God of heaven, and he has given me
commandment to build him a house in Jerusalem which is in
Judea. 3 Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God
be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judea,
and build the house of Yahwe the God of Israel; he is the God
10 Literally "spirit;" so also in vs. 5.

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF EZRA 183

who dwells in Jerusalem. * And each one of the Remnant,11 in any
place where he sojourns let the men of his place assist him with
silver and gold, with goods and beasts of burden ; in addition to
the freewill offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem.

5 Then arose the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and
the priests, and the Levites; namely all whose heart God stirred,
to go up and build the house of Yahwe which is in Jerusalem.
6 And all those round about them strengthened their hands in every
way ; with silver and gold, with goods and beasts of burden ; and
with costly things12 in abundance from all those who voted gifts.

7 And king Cyrus brought forth the vessels of the house of
Yahwe which Nebuchadnezzar had brought away from Jerusalem
and deposited in the house of his god. 8And Cyrus king of Persia
gave them out by the hand of Mithradates the treasurer, and he
numbered them to Sheshbazzar the prince of Judah. 9And this
is the number of them:13 a thousand basins of gold; a thousand
basins of silver; nine and twenty pairs of snuffers; 10 thirty bowls
of gold; two thousand four hundred and ten bowls of silver; and
a thousand other vessels. UA11 the vessels of gold and silver
were five thousand four hundred and sixty-nine. All these
Sheshbazzar brought up when the returning exiles went up from
Babylonia to Jerusalem.

4476And Cyrus the king wrote for him letters to all the satraps lEsdr.

-,.-,-,. 4: 476 — 5:

and governors and captains and deputies, commanding them to
aid him and all those who were going up with him to build
Jerusalem. 48And he wrote letters to all the governors in the
province Beyond the River, and to those in Lebanon, command
ing them to bring cedar wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem, and
to aid him14 in building the city. 49And concerning the freedom

11 1. e., the "Remnant" of Israel, a standing phrase in Jewish holy writ.
Here, the returning Remnant.

12 1. e., gifts for the temple and the public worship.

laWe have no reason to be surprised by these numbers, either because of
the large size of some of them, or because of the proportionately very small
size of the two which stand in the middle of the list; first, because we know
neither the character nor the office of these utensils; and second, because the
Chronicler undoubtedly invented all the numbers to suit himself, and we do
not know what considerations may have guided him.

14 Cf. Ezr. 6:8, where these same governors and other officials are com
manded by Darius to assist the Jews in building the temple; also 7:21 (Chr.),
where they are oruored by Artaxerxes to aid Ezra. This verse (I Esdr. 4:48)
is the one which is expressly referred to in Ezr. 3:7.

134 EZKA STUDIES

of all the Jews who went up from his kingdom to Judea, he wrote
that no ruler, deputy, governor, or satrap should forcibly enter
their doors; 50that all the territory which they should possess
should be free from tribute;15 and that the Edomites should relin
quish the villages of the Jews which they had seized. 51For the
building of the temple he ordered twenty talents to be given
yearly until it should be finished; 52and for offering the whole
burnt sacrifices upon the altar day by day, according as they had
commandment to offer them, ten other talents yearly.16 53For all
those who went up from Babylonia to build the city he com
manded that freedom should be given both to them and to their
children. 54To all the priests that went up he commanded to
give the wages, and the priests' garments in which they minister.

55 And to the Levites he ordered to give their portions, until the
day when the house should be finished and Jerusalem builded.

56 And he commanded that all those guarding the city should be
given allotments and fees.

62 Then all the people17 blessed the God of their fathers, because
he had given them release and relief, 63that they might go up and
build Jerusalem and the house of God that is called by his name.
And they held festival, with music and rejoicing, for seven days.

5 l After this, there were chosen to go up the chief men of
the families, according to their tribes; with their wives and their
sons and daughters, their men-servants and their maid-servants,
and their cattle. 2And Cyrus sent with them a thousand horse
men, to bring them to Jerusalem in safety. 3 And all their brethren,
playing upon musical instruments, drums, and cymbals, sent them
on their way as they went up.

4 And these are the names of the men who went up, accord
ing to their families, in their tribes, by their genealogy. 5Of the
priests, the sons of Phineas and of Aaron, Jeshua, son of Jozadak,
son of Seraiah; and there rose up with him Zerubbabel, son of
Shealtiel, of the house of David, of the family of Perez, of the
tribe of Judah; 6in the second year of the reign of Cyrus king
of Persia, in the month Nisan, on the first day of the month.

15 With this and the preceding verse cf. especially Ezr. 7:24.

16 Cf. with this verse especially Ezr. 6:8-10; 7:21-24.

17 Or simply: "Then they blessed," as the Greek has it. But there is
some probability that a subject of the verb originally stood here, and was
removed by the interpolator. With the whole verse cf. Ezr. 9:8, 9.

THE FIRST CHAPTER or EZRA 135

21 And these are the men of the province who went up from
among the exiled captives whom Nebuchadnezzar, king of Baby
lon, had carried away captive to Babylonia; and who returned
to Jerusalem and Judea, each to his own city; 2 those who came
with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Naha-
mani, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispereth, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah.
3The number of the men of Israel: Of the sons of Parosh, etc.

Then folloivs the list of returning exiles, a list composed for
this purpose by the Chronicler himself, and deliberately repeated
by him (to add as much as possible to its importance) in Neh.,
chap. 7, in his appendix to the Memoir of Nehemiah.

NOTE A (on II Chron. 36:21)

The Seventy Years. — Our commentators have been altogether
unable to explain the computation of the "seventy years," and no
wonder. The beginning of this "Sabbath period" was of course
the destruction of the temple and cessation of the cult, in the
year 586. But it was only 48 years later than this, in 538, that
Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus, and the Persian rule began;
and in the next following year, the second year of Cyrus,18 the
worship was restored in Jerusalem, according to the statement of
the Chronicler. So the real duration of the interval was 49 years.
Bertholet, in his commentary on Ezra 1:1 (Esra und Nehemia,
1902), says: "Seine 70 Jahre wtirden uns freilich ins Jahr 608
als Anfang der Exilsperiode ftihren; aber man darf hier nicht
nach strenger Chronologie fragen." But this is gliding over the
difficulty much too easily. We ought not, indeed, to demand from
the Chronicler and the Jewish tradition our chronology; but we
have the right to expect here a real computation, and certainly
something more "streng" than the equation 49 = 70! Now the
dens ex machina here, as in the other cases of difficulty with the
Jewish chronology of the Persian kings, is "Darius the Mede."
I have already shown (above, p. 38) that the accepted Jewish
tradition in the second and third centuries B. c. — represented also
by the Chronicler — made Darius Hystaspis precede Cyrus.
Since this king came to the throne "when about sixty-two years

18 See my demonstration of the fact above, pp. 28, 61, and in the text and transla
tion here.

136 EZRA STUDIES

of age" (Dan. 6: 1),19 the duration of his reign cannot have been
given as much more than twenty years. Supposing it to have
been twenty-one years, we should have the desired number,
seventy, for the "Sabbath-interval." It is quite possible that a
computation in sevens may then have been made in this way,
after the favorite mariner:

Duration of the Babylonian power after ) _ 20 _ ^ earg

the destruction of the temple ..".".)
Rule of " the Medes " (Darius Hystaspis) 3x7 =21 years
Total interval of " exile " 10 X 7 - 70 years

But however this may be, the fact that the Chronicler's chro
nology introduced Darius Hystaspis at just this point is hardly to
be questioned. For the history as he writes it, the reign of this
king is as indispensable before Cyrus as it is impossible after

him.

NOTE B (on Ezr. 1:8)

The Name Sheshbazzar. — The question of the original form of
this name has been discussed at great length in recent years, but
never with any satisfactory mustering of the evidence. MT has
uniformly "I2MTZ3 , and this was undoubtedly the reading of the
"standard" text of the second century A. D., and the one which
was transliterated by Theodotion. The name is found in vss. 8
and 11 of this chapter, and in 5:14, 16. The Egyptian Greek of
the canonical Ezra (Theodotion) seems to attest the form
2ao-a/3aer(o-)a/o in all of these p]aces.21 The L text has everywhere
(thanks to editorial revision) 2a/3acrdp7js, which evidently origi
nated in 2a [<ra J (Sacrdpris. Theodotion, then, certainly transliterated
2ao-aySao-(<r)a/3. The Vulgate (Sassabasar) follows MT, as was to
be expected.

The form which stood in the I Esdras fragment differed
slightly from this, being ^avaftacro-ap, as will presently appear.
The testimony of the MSS, recensions, and versions is complicated,
including forms which originated in copyists' errors, in arbitrary

19 Is it not likely that this statement was first made and adopted with the express pur
pose of providing definitely for the 70 years ? There is nowhere any similar statement
regarding a foreign monarch, nor is it easy to imagine any other reason for making the
statement here.

20 Certainly not the H3DTP DT^Tp of Dan. 9 : 25, however.

21 So especially codex A, whose text is generally the oldest and best. The Hexaplar
reading seems to have been 2ai>a/3ao-crap (by contamination from I Esdras), judging from N
5 : 14 and 16, and from B in 1 : 8. The readings of B are worth quoting merely as characteristic
of the extremely corrupt state of its text. In vs. 8 it has 'S.aftavaffap ; in vs. 11 the name is
omitted through carelessness ; in 5 : 14 the reading is Baycurap, and in 5 : 16 2<xp/3ayap !

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF EZRA 137

revision, and in confusion with the name Shalmanassar. The
four passages in I Esdr. are 2: 11, 14; 6: 17, 19. Cod. A and its
fellows everywhere attest the reading 2az>a/3a<rcra/>o<?, and this was
certainly the original reading of the "Egyptian" text. The MS
followed J^y Origen in his Hexapla was corrupt here, as generally
elsewhere in these books: the Syr. -Hex. gives in 2:11, 14
and in 6:17, 19 jo^oi^ ; the Ethiopic has in 2:12

Sdmnds, in 2:15 Samnasor, in 6:18 Sanbassdro, and in 6:20
Sanbdsros. Cod. B (as usual, the least valuable of all the wit
nesses) offers ^avafjLaa-a-dpw in 2:11, ^a^avaaadpov in 2:14,
?La/3avao-(rdpq) in 6: 17, and ^avapdacrapos in 6:19. That is, the
reading of Origen's "LXX" column was ^a^avao-aap- in 2:11
and 14, and ^avafiao-aap- in 6: 17 and 19.

The L Greek presents a different form of the name, which at
first sight makes the impression of being the original reading of
the Syro-Palestinian text, the form *2ao-a/3a\dao-apos. That this
was not the primitive tradition of this family of MSS, however, is
made certain by several facts. The old Latin version, which is
a rendering of the Syro-Palestinian Greek, attests no such form.
The cod. Colbertinus (Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae
versiones antiquae, Vol. Ill) has in 2:11 Sabassaro; in 6:18
Salabassar; and in 6:20 Sabassus (sic). The Lucca codex
(Lagarde, Sepiuaginia-Studien II, 14) has in 2:11 Salmanassaro
— apparently by contamination from a corrupt form of the Greek;
and this form is the one which has been adopted throughout by
the Vulgate. What is far more important, however, and indeed
quite* decisive, is the witness of Josephus, who by good fortune
has preserved three of the passages in wrhich the name occurs.
In the first of these, Antt. xi, 1, 3, corresponding to I Esdr. 2: 11,
he has 'Aftao-crdpa), obviously derived from I Esdr. TrapeSoOrjaav
[^av^affao-o-dpw; in xi, 4, 4 he has 2a/3acra/30i>, haplography from
2a[m]/3acra/ooi>; and in xi, 4, 6 he gives (^avaftaacrdpov. That
is, the Greek text which he used — namely, a text of the old trans
lation from which "I Esdras" was derived — gave the name as
^Lavaflacrcrap; and from the coincidence with the Egyptian text of
I Esdr. we know that this was the reading of the fragment. It
follows with certainty, that the form 2acra/3aXacr<7a/3, found in the
L text of I Esdr., is a fruit of the late Lucianic revision. The
reading may be either a learned improvement, or (far more likely)
the result of scribal errors. However excellently it may suit our

138 EZRA STUDIES

theories of the etymology of the name, it cannot possibly be
regarded as an old reading.

We are left, then, with the two forms, Sesbassar (Hebrew
tradition) and Sanabassar (old Greek translation). As for the
latter, we do not know that it represented a different Hebrew
reading; on the contrary, ^ava/Baacrap is probably an ancient
corruption of ^Lao-aftaacrap, the accidental writing of v for cr being
a blunder of which there are many examples. ISSTDTC is not
easily explained as the result of textual corruption, and is capable
of interpretation as a Semitic name ; we may therefore accept it
without hesitation as the original form. It is presumably a Jewish
adaptation of Sawas-abal-usur,22 as not a few scholars have seen.
The contraction in the latter part of the name is not greater than
in the similar case of IS&WjbD. , Belsassar, for Bel-sar-usur, to say
nothing of extra-biblical instances. With the Chronicler's "I2MOTZ3 ,
I Chron. 3: 18, the name ^TiZJTZJ has of course nothing to do.

NOTE C (onEzr. l:9ff.).

The number of the temple-vessels. — The difficulties of this list
are well known. It was altered by accident at an early date, and
numerous attempts (represented by versions and single manu
scripts) were made to restore it. The testimony of the various
witnesses is as follows:

MT and the corresponding versions23 I Esdras

(Theodotion, Jerome) ^-- •*^_--^^__--*1 -^

Egyptian Syrian

Golden basins 30 1,000 L 30; om. Lat.

Silver basins 1,000 1,000 om.24

Snuffers 29 29 29

Golden bowls 30 30 30

Silver bowls 410 2,410 2,310 (Lat. 2,400)

Other utensils 1,000 1,000 1,OCO

Total 5,400 5,469 om. (Lat. 5,860)

From this table it is evident that the most of the numbers are
well attested. There are three in the case of which it is possible
to think of emending MT, namely, those of the golden basins, the

MSaivas for Samas, as in not a few transcribed Babylonian name?. Thus, for example,
TEltU (in Aramaic characters) in the name Ki SamaS, Stevenson, Assyrian and Babylonian
Contracts, No. 37; see also the examples given in the Business Documents of Murashu Sons,
ed. Hilprecht and Clay, 1898, pp. 8 and 9.

23 All the texts agree with MT, except that in the case of the silver bowls, instead of the
number 410 Cod. B has 6, while A omits it. 1 n the case of B one might think of a possible con
fusion of Roman numerals with the Greek : YI = 410, and VI = 6.

2* Lat. has 2400, evidently borrowed from the number of the silver bowls, just below.

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF EZRA 139

silver bowls, and (of course) the total. As for this last item, it
is beyond question that the sum gained by adding the numbers
already given is what the author intended and originally wrote.
Any emended or restored text must of necessity either leave this
"total" blank, or else make it actually equal to the sum of the
numbers which are written.

Regarding the number of the silver bowls, it is plain that the
original number was 2,410. The "two thousand" is attested not
only by I Esdr., but also by the DToJ [72] of MT, and by the size
of the total in all the texts. The original reading, instead of
D^TZJ/2 ~CD — which is mere nonsense here — was D^sbjS] "CD

D"D1ZJ (just as in Arabic, ^Ul'j .tbj UH , "2,000 dinars," Wright,

Grammar, II, 236 B; cf. also Judg. 16:28, Am. 3:12, Gesenius-
Kautzsch § 88 /) and the bracketed letters were accidentally lost,
by haplography, in the MS from which our MT was derived.

The number of golden basins is given by MT as 30, by I Esdr.
as 1,000 (the "thirty" of L was borrowed from the canonical
Greek, as has been done in a multitude of similar cases). The
amount of the total — in both recensions — turns the scale deci
sively in favor of the number 1,000. I Esdras, then, has preserved
the original numbers throughout, both in the separate items and
in the sum total. When the text underlying MT was accidentally
corrupted, the "total" was altered to a round number, 5,400. The
number "thirty" for the golden basins, in vs. 9 of our Hebrew,
was derived by an error from that of the golden bowls, in vs. 10 ;
the eye of the copyist wandering from the word 3HT to the
in the next line below.

VI
THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA

I. THE CHARACTER OF THE

Imbedded in the book of Ezra are what purport to be copies
of a number of royal and other official communications relating
to the Jews, dating from the Persian period. These are: (1)
The decree of Cyrus; or more exactly, that part of the decree
which announces the purpose of Yah we, and encourages the Jews
to return from Babylonia to Jerusalem; Ezr. 1:2-4. (2) The
letter of Rehum and Shimshai to Artaxerxes Longimanus, urging
him to stop the building of Jerusalem; 4:8-16. (3) The reply
of the king, commanding that building operations be stopped;
4:17-22. (4) A letter from Palestinian officials to Darius
Nothus,1 complaining that the Jews are rebuilding their temple,
and at the same time giving the king a concise history (quoted
verbatim from the Jews themselves) of that most interesting
building; 5:7-17. (5) The decree of Cyrus2 in regard to the
building of the temple in Jerusalem and the restoring of the
vessels of gold and silver; 6:3-5. (6) A part (the beginning is
missing) of the letter of Darius in reply to the Palestinian offi
cials; 6:6-12. (7) A letter of Artaxerxes Mnemon3 to Ezra,
officially establishing the Mosaic law and ritual in Jerusalem and
Judea, recognizing the temple in Jerusalem as the one legitimate
seat of the worship of the God of Israel, and appointing Ezra as
the religious head of Palestine with full powers; 7:12—26.

This is certainly a very remarkable collection of documents,

1 This means to say only, that according to the narrative which contains
these letters the king by whose order the temple was completed was Darius II. See
above, pp. 38 f., 135 f. I have never doubted that the "Darius" of Haggai and Zecha-
riah was really Darius I.

2 It is quite possible that the document is not complete in its present form. There is
obviously a gap between verses 5 and 6, for the leap which is here made from the decree of
Cyrus into the middle(!) of a letter of Darius cannot possibly have been made in the
original narrative. See further below.

3 See the, note above. The Aramaic papyrus fragments recently discovered in Egypt
make it extreWely probable (though not absolutely certain; see below) that the "Arta
xerxes'" mentioned in the book of Nehemiah is Artaxerxes Longimanus; but according
to the clear and consistent statements of our narrative the king who
appears in Ezr. 7 ft. and Neh. is Artaxerxes II.

140

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS or EZRA 141

especially remarkable when it is borne in mind that we are other
wise almost entirely destitute of Jewish historical traditions from
the Persian period. Aside from the prophecies of Haggai and
Zechariah, which are merely brief religious compositions, and
the story of Nehemiah (which was hardly preserved as an official
document, but rather as a popular narrative), we have scarcely
even the semblance of historical standing ground.4 We might
expect that at least a list of the governors — Persian or Jewish —
who were stationed in Jerusalem would have been handed down ;
but we have only the names Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, and Ne
hemiah. The succession of the high priests is given us only by
the Chronicler, probably derived from oral tradition;5 Neh.
12:10f., 22. As for the Jewish tradition with regard to the
Persian Kings, it is a very significant fact that it places
Darius Hystaspis (under the name "Darius the Mede") just
before Cyrus, instead of after him. The comparison of Dan.
5:30; 6:1, 29; 9:1; 10:1; 11:1, with the succession of kings in
Ezra: Cyrus, Xerxes. Artaxerxes, Darius, Artaxerxes, and again
with the computation of the "seventy years" of the captivity
(48 years, remainder of Neo-Babylonian rule; +21 years, reign
of Darius as Babylonian monarch; -[-1 year of Cyrus)b
proves this in conclusive manner, as I have already shown.7 It
seems quite certain, in view of all this, that no extensive written
traditions of the Persian period were preserved in Jerusalem.
The latter half of the period, in particular, was a time full of
events of great interest and importance for the history of the
province of Judea and of the temple at Jerusalem ; but no Jewish
record of them has survived. Even such a momentous thing as

4 The Chronicler's stories of Ezra and Nehemiah, as I have already shown, have no
more historical value than his stories of David and the ark. I shall return to this subject
later.

5 The Chronicler's allusion to a " book of the Chronicles " in Neh. 12 : 23 is no more to be
taken seriously than are his allusions to the sixteen other books of his imaginary library
(see the list in Driver's Introduction). There is not the least internal evidence that he had
a written source before him in compiling these lists, while they all bear, both in matter
and in form, the unmistakable stamp of his handiwork. I shall return to this subject later.

c See above, pp. 38 f., 135 f.

7 In all probability, the Jewish tradition was not far wrong in its estimate of the
length of the reign of this Darius. When he took the throne of Babylonia he was "about
pixty-two years of age" (Dan. 6:1), and the theory of course supposed a previous reign over
Media. In reality, the reign of Darius Hystaspis lasted 36 years; which would agree ex
cellently with the Jewish estimate. Further evidence that this "Mede" was none other
than Darius Hystaspis is furnished by Dan. 6: 2 f., where this king is said to have reorganized
the government of \ ' 0 empire, dividing it into satrapies, and providing for the royal super
vision of these. Here is certainly a surviving tradition of the great reforms of Darius I,
who did, indeed, accomplish this very work, soon after his accession to the throne.

142 EZRA STUDIES

the Samaritan schism is without mention in old Hebrew literature,
excepting the (necessarily veiled) allusion by the Chronicler in
Neb. 13:28f.8 The question of the trustworthiness of these
documents in the book of Ezra is therefore one of very great
importance.

1. The Prevailing View

Most writers on the Old Testament, in modern times, have
regarded the Aramaic documents in Ezra — i. e., all of those men
tioned above, with the exception of the edict of Cyrus in chap. 1 —
as genuine, or at least, as genuine in their original form.
A few scholars, to be sure, expressed themselves decidedly against
the authenticity of one or more of these writings, two or three
decades ago; thus Graetz, Gesch. der Juden, II, 1875, pp. 87, 100,
128, declared them all forgeries; and Noldeke, Gott. gel. Anzeigen,
1884, 1014, rendered a similar verdict in the case of the letter in
Ezr. 7:12-26. In the years which followed it became customary,
among the more "advanced" Old Testament scholars, to speak of
these letters and decrees as more or less altered from their primi
tive wording, and therefore not fully trustworthy. Thus, the first
editions of Cornill's Einleitung treat the Aramaic documents in Ezr.,
chaps. 4-6 as authentic, but say that 7:12-26 is "iiberarbeitet."
Similarly Bleek-Wellhausen3, Bertheau-Kyssel, Comrn., 1887,
Kuenen, and others. Stade, Geschichte, thought that the letters
might possibly have been composed by the author of the narrative
in which they are imbedded, though he believed the information
which they contain to be in the main trustworthy. In general, it
has been a well-nigh universal custom to treat "the Aramaic
source" or "the Aramaic history" as an important historical com
position, even among those who look with suspicion on the docu
ments which it contains. Thus Driver, 'Introduction : "[The
Aramaic source] appears to have been a thoroughly trustworthy
document, though the edicts contained in it, so far as their form
is concerned, are open to the suspicion of having been coloured
by their transmission through Jewish hands." In a word: 'The
documents are not genuine, but in substance are thoroughly trust
worthy!'9 Van Hoonacker, 1892, maintained the authenticity of

8 Composition of Ezr.-Neh., p. 48.

9 The objections to this position are both obvious and decisive. In the first place, the
"Aramaic source" contains nothing but these suspicious documents, and we have no right
at all (in the absence of proof) to assum^ that it ever did contain more. And in the second
place, when documents lie before us which in form do not appear to be authentic, whose

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS or EZRA 143

all these "records;" and so, doubtless, did the majority of his
contemporaries who had studied the matter.

Rosters, in his Herstel, 1893, while finding genuine portions
in the Aramaic documents, rejected the most as a worthless fabri
cation.10 Wellhausen, Ruckkehr der Juden, 1895, declared all
the Aramaic "Urkunden" worthless — but continued, and still
continues, to use them for his History. In my own investigations,
which were completed before I had seen the work of either Rosters
or Wellhausen, I reached the conclusion that these Aramaic por
tions of Ezra are compositions exactly on a par with Dan., chaps. 1-6
and the book of Esther ; and also, that the Artaxerxes letter in Ezra,
chap. 7, is the work of the Chronicler alone. See my Composition,
1896. Professor H. P. Smith adopted nearly all my conclusions,
incorporating them in his Old Testament History, 1903. In one
point, however, his view differs widely from my own. In common
with nearly all those who have discussed the book of Ezra in
recent times, he assumes that the letters in 4:7-23 are out of
place in their present connection, and belong rather to a time
shortly before the work of Nehemiah (pp. 347 f.). This matter
will be considered below. Smith seems to suggest, moreover, that
our present book of Ezra could be improved not only by the
excision of 4:7—24, but also by cutting out the whole group of
documents (in chaps. 5 and 6) which purport to come from the
time of Darius; a proceeding which would have the effect of
reducing the whole "Aramaic Source" to three verses of nar
rative (5 : 1, 2 ; 6 : 15) plus the two letters (chap. 4) which according
to his view are quite isolated, since he believes that a context for
them can only be conjectured.11 This certainly hacks the Gordian
knot into bits.

The view prevailing among the most advanced scholars, then,
for some time past, has been that these Aramaic documents are
very valuable, though many have believed them to have been more
or less altered from their original form by Jewish editors.

statements we canuot control from any other source, and of whoso author or authors
we know nothing, beyond the fact that they obviously write with a "tendency," we
cannot legitimately make use of them.

i() Rosters' methods, however, were not thoroughly scientific, and his conclusions, in the
main, were of little value.

11 He remarks (p. 351): "It is cloar that if the whole account were stricken out we
should have a perfectly good connection, 5 : 2 being continued directly by 6 : 15." But by this
reasoning we could eliminate nearly every formal document that was ever incorporated in
a history. Of course, when the main nan ative is resumed the connection is resumed ! It is
this same illogical argument that Wellhausen uses in regard to I Mace., chaps. 8 and 15, in
order to get rid of the episodes and documents which he finds inconvenient.

144 EZRA STUDIES

Recently, however, the view has gained wide acceptance, especially
in Germany, that we have here true copies of the original records
themselves, the ipsissima verba of Persian "Urkunden und Akten-
stucke." Thus Cornill, Einleitung*, 1905, after designating the
writings by the words just quoted, says that their "Echtheit" is
"iiber jeden Zweifel erhoben;" and similarly, that the genuine
ness of the Artaxerxes letter to Ezra, in 7 : 12-26, is now " abschliess-
end bewiesen." Siegfried, Kommentar, declares the authenticity
of these Aramaic transcripts to be " unwiderleglich nachgewiesen"
(p. 7). So also Bertholet, Commentar; Guthe, Polychrome Bible;
Budde, Gesch. der althebr. Litteratur, 1906, pp. 231 ff., and
many others.

This increased confidence in the "genuineness" of the Ezra
documents is due chiefly to E. Meyer's Entstehung des Juden-
thums (1896), in which, after setting forth quite fully — but super
ficially, as will appear — the arguments pro and con, the author
reaches the conclusion that all the letters and edicts in the book,
excepting only the Decree of Cyrus in chap. I,12 are authentic.
Meyer's own opinion as to the fruit of his argument is expressed
on p. 70: "Damit ware, denke ich, nicht nur die Aechtheit der im
Buche Ezra tiberlieferten aramaischen Dokumente gegen alle Ein-
wande erwiesen, sondern mehrfach auch ein klarer Einblick in

12 Why he should except this as he does (Entstehung, p. 49) is not at all clear. Every
single phrase in it is cut out of the very same cloth as is the phraseology of the documents
which follow. It does not contain a sentence or an idea which is not exactly paralleled in
chaps. 6 and 7, saving only that at the beginning Cyrus compliments the God of the Jews by
identifying him with the chief of his own gods. But this last-mentioned fact would be only
a matter of course to Professor Meyer, as may be seen from his own words (p. 64) : " Seit wir
wissen, wie Kambyses und Darius in den agyptischen Inschriften als treue Diener der ein-
heimischen GOtter auftreten, wie Kyros in seiner Proklamation an die Babylonier sich als
den eifrigsten Verehrer und den erklarten Liebling des Marduk einfilhrt, diirfte niemand
daran Anstoss nehmen, wenn sich ein Perserkonig den Judcn gegentiber in gleicher Weise
ausserte." Nor is this all. Meyer explains the out and out priestly- Jewish language of the
Artaxerxes edict in chap. 7 by the very " simple" theory that Ezra and his companions drew
up the document, while the Persian ministers only gave it official form (p. 65). Why, then,
may it not be that Sheshbazzar, or the high priest Jeshua, drew up the Cyrus edict? The
reason for denying the authenticity cannot lie in the manner in which the document is pre
sented here, for the claim of its verbal genuineness is precisely as clear as in the case of the
/irman of Ezra ; the proclamation is distinctly said to have been "in writing, as folloivs"1
(1:2). Nor can Meyer fairly withhold credence from the Cyrus edict on the ground that it is
presented to us by the Chronicler; so is the Artaxerxes decree (every word of 7:1-11 com
posed by the Chronicler, as Meyer himself agrees), and so also are the letters in chap. 4. It
cannot be said that 1 : 2-4 is in any way incongruous with 6 : 3-5 ; on the contrary, if we should
suppose that 1 :4 was originally followed immediately by 6: 3a£ ("As for the house of God in
Jerusalem," etc.) so that the text of the complete edict included 1 :2-4; 6:3«|3-5, the whole
document would be perfectly harmonious and homogeneous. Why should not Meyer assume
that the Chronicler translated the first sentences of the decree, from Aramaic into Hebrew,
and transferred them to their present place in chap. 1, the place where they are really most
effective? There is no difficulty whatever in the way — excepting the same difficul
ties which stand in the way of all the other documents.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 145

die Bedeutung dieser fur die jiidische wie fur die persische
Geschichte unschatzbaren Urkunden gewonnen." To this claim
the most of those Old Testament scholars who have written on the
book of Ezra during the past decade have seemed to give assent.
But I do not believe that any thorough and unbiased student
of the Old Testament who subjects Meyer's argument to a really
critical examination, taking into account the important factors
which he has left out of account, will be able to accept his
conclusions.

2. A Literary Habit of Ancient Narrators

Some of the principles and general truths uttered by Meyer
at the outset are of very doubtful value. At the foot of p. 2, in
the Introduction, he says, alluding to a remark of Stade's to the
effect that the Jewish writer might himself have composed the
letters and decrees which he incorporated: "Die 'bekannten Ge-
wohnheiten alter Schriftsteller,' welche dafur sprechen sollen, dass
diese Urkunden Erfindungen des Schriftstellers seien, sind mir
ganzlich unbekannt. Die Alten haben den Wortlaut wichtiger
Urkunden in ihre Texte genau ebenso aufgenommen wie die neu-
eren Historiker." If this last sentence means to say, that some
ancient narrators introduced some genuine documents into their
narratives, it is superfluous information; if it means that the for
mal documents included in ancient Jewish narratives and his
tories are usually genuine, it is not true. And it is true — as will
presently appear — that some of the best early (including Jewish)
historians of whom we have knowledge invented "official docu
ments," with purely literary purpose, in a way that would
not be tolerated in a serious historical work of the present day.
The substitution of "Historiker" for "Schriftsteller" looks a little
like begging the question, moreover, since not every writer of
stories — even stories which contain correct and perhaps valuable
historical data — deserves the title "historian." We should hardly
give this name, for instance, to the authors of Daniel, Esther, and
III Maccabees. One of the things which we especially wish to find
out is, whether the writer of these few pages of Aramaic embody
ing the records in question is entitled to it.

As for the claim that the verbal quotation of the documents is
presumptive proof of their genuineness: the real fact is, that the
direct citation of speeches, letters, and decrees, as a mere literary

146 EZRA STUDIES

device, in order to make the account more interesting and effective
by increasing its verisimilitude, plays as important a part in the
narrative literature of the Hebrews as in that of other peoples.
To illustrate: In II Kings 5:6 and 10:2 f. two brief letters are
quoted, with the purpose of enlivening the narrative. The one is
a letter from the king of Syria to the prophet Elisha, and the
other a circular missive sent by Jehu to the magnates of Jezreel
and Samaria. They are mere scraps; but the purpose of present
ing them as verbal citations, and not as quotations in sub
stance only, is made evident by the formal iTIFUn (the equivalent
of the Aramaic FC3p*l) "To proceed," used to introduce the letter
proper, after the preliminaries. In II Chron. 2:2-15 we have the
transcript of two letters, the correspondence of the kings Hiram
and Solomon, with which the Chronicler has enriched the story of
the building of the temple. No one well acquainted with the Old
Testament would think of asking how it happens that these docu
ments, lost to sight for many centuries, should turn up at last in
the hands of the Chronicler.

The "documents" thus far mentioned are not given in full
official dress, with the introductory formula of address and greet
ing, obviously because they are too short to make this desirable.
In the book of Esther — at least in its massoretic form — the sev
eral royal letters and edicts are given only in brief abstract, though
the writer plainly means to give the impression that he could pre
sent them in extenso if he wished. And in the Greek form of the
book they are indeed given verbatim and in full, with date, super
scription, and all, in the same way as in the book of Ezra. In
Daniel, again, we find the same literary-traditional use of "official
records" in order to give dramatic life to the narrative. The
technical framework of the documents is given now partially, now
entirely. Thus, in 6:26 ff. we have the text of a decree of Darius.
It does not begin with the king's name, because that had just been
written, and the repetition would have been awkward ; but its dress
is otherwise quite formal: "To all the Peoples, Nations, and
Languages, that dwell in all the earth; your peace be multiplied.
I make a decree, etc." And in 3:31 — 4:34 is given, with all cir
cumstance and in what purports to be the exact form,13 a long

13 Save that in 4:16, 25-30 the narrator carelessly lapses into the use of the third person
instead of the first, in speaking of the king ; precisely as the Chronicler, in composing the
" personal memoirs " of Ezra, every now and then falls out of the impersonation, writing
about his hero instead of letting him speak.

THE AEAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 147

proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar, with both introduction and for
mal conclusion. Other examples of the same kind are the two
letters of Ptolemy Philopator "preserved" in III Maccabees; the
first (3:12-29) commanding the punishment of the Jews, and the
second (7:1-9) proclaiming the king their friend and protector.
Both of these are in the regular epistolary form, like the letters
in Ezra.

More instructive still, if possible, is the employment — i. e., the
free composition — of these pseudo-official sources by two of the
best-known Jewish historians. Josephus, in his Antiquities,
illustrates his story of the Jews by the addition of a good many
official documents, a considerable proportion of which were evi
dently composed by him for the purpose. Characteristic specimens
are to be found in this very portion of the history dealing with the
Persian period, where, in addition to the documents contained in
the book of Ezra14 he presents us with a letter from Cyrus to the
governors in Palestine (xi, 1, 3) as well as a letter from Darius
to the Samaritans (xi, 4, 9).15 In both cases it is evident that
what Josephus aims to contribute is not information, but pomp
and circumstance. He did not compose the letters for the sake of
any new material which they contain (the Cyrus letter, for
instance, is made up almost entirely of things which stand else
where in the book), but simply for the glory which they
give the Jews, in the eyes of the world and in triumph over
their adversaries the Samaritans. And in the subsequent chapters
of his history he proceeds in the same way, introducing here and
there high-sounding documents which are quoted verbatim, and
the value of which, to us, is very small indeed.

In I Maccabees, that most admirable of all Jewish narratives,
we have the same thing once more. Its author is a man of the
best stamp, and with the instincts of a true historian, though
writing from a point of view which is emphatically that of his
own day and his own people. He is well informed, but modest
and reserved, and withal a man of few words; not at all the one
to make a display of learning, or wilfully to mislead his readers.
Scattered through his history are copies of official letters, treaties

11 In the interpolated form which I have already described at some length. See
especially pp. 31 ft'.

i5 If anyone wishes to suppose, with HOlscher, Quellen des JosepJms, 43 ff., that these
" apocryphal" adtuaons, and numerous others of the same sort in the subsequent chapters
of the history, were made not by Josephus himself, but by one of his sources, whose aim, as
he says, was to " glorify Judaism," the argument is of course not affected by the supposition.

148 EZRA STUDIES

and proclamations; formally faultless, as a rule, but often betray
ing, in one way or another, the fact that they are not "genuine."1
They are doubtless in the main trustworthy in the sense that they
give a correct impression of the progress of events, inasmuch
as they embody the honest and sober recollection of
one who was exceptionally well informed, and who wrote
soon after the events, of which at least the greater part had taken
place during his own life-time. But whoever looks here for a
habit of incorporating official records similar to the habit of mod
ern historians will look in vain.

Again, the fondness of these early writers for the dramatic
form of presentation must not be overlooked in this connection.
With this end in view they frequently quote verbatim the speeches,
prayers, or other utterances of their chief characters. Judas
Maccabaeus makes a succession of fiery speeches to his soldiers,
I Mace. 3:18-22, 58-60; 4:8-11, etc. Are they "genuine"?
So Josephus very often improves the Old Testament narrative by
making similar insertions. Thus, in telling the story of Nehemiah
(Antt., xi, 5, 7) he gives us the wording of an address of some
length made by that hero in the temple. Greek historians had
the same habit, as every one knows. Thucydides, for instance, in
iv, 85-87 (to take the example which lies nearest at hand) quotes
in full a very interesting speech made by the Spartan general
Brasidas to the men of Acanthus. The oration is full of weighty
matters, and it had an immediate and important effect, as we are
expressly told, for it induced the Acanthians to revolt from Athens
(just as the letter of Kehum and Shimshai in Ezra 4 had the
immediate and important effect of stopping the building of the
temple in Jerusalem). Fortunately, Thucydides himself has told
us what to expect from such "quotations" as this one. His words
are worth repeating here because of their bearing on the present

I6 So scholars have long recognized and repeatedly shown, in the case of one or another
of these documents; for example, the letter of Demetrius Soter, 10:25-45; the proclamation
in honor of Simon, 14:27-47; and the Roman edict, 15:16-21. Probably not a single one of
all the writings thus incorporated in the history represents in its wording, nor even exactly
in its substance, any actual document. For the statements made, and the opinions expressed
here, I may refer to my article "I Maccabees" in the Encyclopaedia Biblica^ III, 2857-69.
A renewed study of the book, since that article was written, has confirmed me in the conclu
sions there stated and supported. Certainly the most, and perhaps all, of these incorporated
writings were freely composed by the author of the history, as the best means of narrating
what he wished to narrate and of making the impression which he wished to make. He had
before him no written narrative source or sources. There is no valid reason whatever for
supposing interpolation, anywhere in the book. The last three chapters (or more exactly,
14:16 — 16: 24), now quite generally regarded as secondary, certainly formed a part of
the original work.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 149

inquiry; i, 22 (Jowett's translation) : "/ have put into the mouth
of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed
as I thought he would be likely to express them; while at the same
time I endeavored, as nearly as I could, to give the general pur
port of ivhat was actually said" l That is, he gives us in each
case, not words which were uttered, but words which, judging
from all known facts, ought to have been uttered. This, I take it,
is not the method of a modern historian, but more nearly that of
the writer of a thoroughgoing historical novel. As for drawing a
line of distinction, as regards this free use, between the spoken
oration, which presumably teas not preserved in writing, and the
official document, which presumably was preserved somewhere, we
may be sure that no one of these ancient writers did anything of
the kind. Not even Thucydides (to say nothing of the Jewish
narrators!) could ever have supposed that it was any less permis
sible to compose the utterances of a Brasidas in the form of a
letter, beginning: "Brasidas to the men of Acanthus, greeting,"
etc. (supposing that a letter was known, or believed, to have been
written), than to give the same things in the form of a speech,
with the orator's introduction: "Men of Acanthus!" when that
was believed to have been the form of the communication. To
illustrate: in i, 137 Thucydides presents us with what purports to
be a true copy of a letter from Themistocles to Artaxerxes I
Longimanus. As a matter of fact, it was certainly invented by
the historian, according to the principles above stated by him in
regard to the speeches, as few modern scholars would doubt.18

i ' These words, I believe, describe exactly the proceeding of the author of I Maccabees
in composing the documents which are scattered through his history. If original documents
were ready to hand, he was glad to use them ; if they were not, he invented them, like Thucy
dides, to the best of his ability and in perfect good faith.

I have recently had the satisfaction of seeing my estimate of the account of the Jewish
embassy to Rome, told in I Mace., chap. 8, strikingly confirmed. In my article in the Encycl.
Bibl., mentioned above, I argued that the narrative of the sending of the embassy, and of its
favorable reception, is accurate, and was plainly written by a contemporary who was well
informed; but that the treaty there quoted (vss. 23-32) was invented by the author of the
book in accordance with the custom which his contemporary readers, at all events, under
stood (loc. cit., col. 2866). Wellhausen, Israelitische und judische Geschichte^, 268, contends
that I Mace. 8 is an interpolation, though he gives no good reason for this view, beyond the
fact that the quoted document cannot be "genuine," and that the narrative is therefore to
be suspected. Now, however, Niese has shown (NQldeke- Festschrift, II, 817-29) that Jos.,
Antt., xiv, 233 has preserved a genuine Roman document of the year 161/160 B. c., dealing
with this embassy and containing mention of the reply made to the Jews by the Roman
Senate. The substantial accuracy of the narrative in chap. 8 is thus proved once for all ; as
for the treaty, Niese recognizes, as I had, that it is merely " ein freies, schriftstellerisches
Produkt." I have no doubt that the case of I Mace. 15:15-24 is exactly similar, as I also
argued at length (col. _365). Here, again, Wellhausen, op. cit., p. 276, supposes an interpo
lation.

!8 " Der Brief Thuc. 1, 137 kann nicht als echte Urkunde angesehen werden ; " Noldeke,
Aufsatze zur persischen Geschichte, p. 50, note.

150 EZRA STUDIES

But to speak of this, and of the documents in Josephus, and
Daniel, and I Maccabees, and the rest, as "forgeries" would be a
ridiculous misuse of terms.19 On the other hand, no such free
dom as this could be tolerated at the present day, in a serious
historical work.

To sum up: The Hebrew and Jewish narrators and historians,
of all ages, were accustomed to give life to their narratives by
inventing and inserting speeches, prayers, letters, royal decrees,
treaties, and the like, occasionally summarized, but more often
given "verbally" and in full, including even the stereotyped frame
work; just as is done by modern writers of historical novels. Out
of the considerable number of such formal documents which have
reached us in early Jewish literature (leaving now out of account
the documents in Ezra) very few can be called genuine,
at best,20 and these few belong to a time long after the close of
the Persian period. In the case of the most of them it seems
highly probable that the author and his readers thought of them
merely as a mode of literary embellishment. They are not, and
were not intended, to be taken seriously. This certainly gives us
a clear presumption with which to approach the Ezra documents,
though not exactly the presumption which Professor Meyer
demands.

But Meyer's failure to take account of this literary habit is by
no means the chief objection which is to be raised against his
treatment of the Ezra documents, as I shall endeavor to show.

3. The Tendency of the Documents

In a footnote on p. 43 of his Entstehung Meyer says: "Davori
will ich gar nicht weiter reden, dass absolut nicht einzusehen ist, zu
welchem Zwecke sich jemand die Muhe gegeben haben sollte, diese
und ebenso die anderen Urkunderi von cap. 4-6 zu fabriciren."
This confession of inability to see any motive for composing these
documents is a fatal one, for it shows either that Meyer has not
the thoroughgoing acquaintance with Jewish literature which is

19 See my Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 29, above; and my article "I Maccabees"
in the Encyl. Bibl., §§8 (end), 9d, 10. It would be interesting and profitable to carry still
farther the discussion of this whole matter of the literary embellishment of serious
narrative by ancient writers. It is a subject which, so far as Hebrew-Jewish literature is con
cerned, has been almost totally neglected.

20 Josephus incorporates some genuine documents in his history, in the portion dealing
with the close of the Greek rule and the beginning of the Roman period. He simply copies
them from his Greek sources, and sometimes inserts them in ludicrously unsuitable places;
see Niese in the Ndldeke-Festschrift, II, 828, and HOlscher, Quellen des Josephus, p. 22.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS or EZRA 151

absolutely necessary to any one who undertakes such an investi
gation as this, or else, that he is shutting his eyes to what lies in
plain sight. In the first place, we are not limited to imaginary
cases, for we have in the pre-Christian Jewish writings plenty of
"fabricated" documents of just this nature, to which we can turn
for instruction. Why did the Chronicler — or his source — insert
the Hiram-Solomon letters (verbally quoted) in his account of the
building of the temple ? Why do we find in Josephus' history of the
Persian period the formal letters from Cyrus to the Syrian govern
ors and from Darius to the Samaritans, to say nothing of the many
others of the same character ? And again, why should the author of
the Daniel stories "have given himself the trouble" to compose the
royal edicts which he incorporates, especially the very long decree
of Nebuchadnezzar? Can any one imagine a reason why the long
and elaborate "Letter of Aristeas" should have been composed
with such painstaking by an Egyptian Jew, in the third century
B.C.? At all events, it was thus fabricated, and probably at
very near the time when these Ezra documents were composed.
And then we have the dozens of royal letters and decrees, freely
invented, in the three books of Maccabees, in Esther, and still
elsewhere. Even if the motives were "absolut nicht einzusehen,"
the fact would remain that these more or less elaborate formal
instruments were created by the wholesale, by Jewish narrators,
from at least the third century B. c. onward.

It is plain, further, that Meyer greatly underestimates the
power of imagination possessed by the early Jewish writers, and
the extent to which this power was used in their writings. On
p. 47, for example, in speaking of the statement in Ezr. 6:1, 2 that
the memorandum supposed to be in Babylon21 was found at Ecba-
tana. he says that this is "was kein Mensch erfunden haben wtirde."
But this is putting an astonishingly low estimate on the capacity
of an Israelite story-teller. Such bits of real life as this are just
the business of any one who wishes to give his narrative touches of
verisimilitude. Moreover, in this particular instance even a very
stupid narrator might well have been equal to the invention, for
it was obviously incumbent on him to show why this docu
ment had been lost to sight: the fact is (so the narrator
implies), no one would have thought of looking for such a record

21 As a matter of fact, however, the word ^H here does not mean "Babylon," but
"Babylonia."

152 EZRA STUDIES

anywhere else than in Babylonia ; but really it was in Ecbatana all
the time ; hence Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and Darius had known nothing
about it. And so it is with the other elements of the narrative, or
features of the documents, which Meyer singles out as marks of
genuineness; they are all such, and only such, as any writer with
a particle of imagination would be sure to produce.

Again, Meyer points repeatedly to the plausible elements in
these records, as though giving conclusive proof of their genuine
ness; a "forger" would not have made them thus. So on p. 43,
for instance, speaking of the letter of Tattenai in chap. 5, he says
that if all this is forged, the forgery is "ausserst geschickt gemacht."
But does not this also reveal a surprisingly low opinion of the
literary ability of that day? The authorship of these documents
might be called "skilful" if they were drawn up and worded in
such a way that they would not appear to be Jewish com
positions. But any student of the Old Testament can see that
they all sound distinctly — often, indeed, quite unmistakably —
like Jewish compositions. Even Meyer sees it. He is obliged to
admit a "Jewish redaction" of the official writings in chap. 6
(see below) . He is even forced to assume, in the case of 7: 12—26,
that Ezra composed this royal edict, while the Persians merely
signed it! Whatever else may be said of the narrator whose
"Persian official documents" necessitate such a telltale hypothesis
as this, he certainly cannot be called "ausserst geschickt."

As for the skill displayed (it may be remarked here in passing),
we might reasonably have expected that the composer, or com
posers, of these documents would try to imitate the Aramaic of
the fifth century B. c. That which is actually employed belongs
to a period two or three centuries later, as will be shown presently.
It may be, however, that specimens of the older language were
not within reach.

But to return to the tendency of the documents. Meyer's
remark, quoted above, that he cannot imagine a motive for
the invention of these records, is by no means an empty phrase.
It is plain, on page after page, that he is indeed able to overlook
the many plain indications which any thorough student of Hebrew-
Jewish history and literature finds staring him in the face; I
mean those students who recognize the fact that the Chronicler
did not write unvarnished history, and that the narrative of Daniel
is fancifully didactic rather than literally accurate. It is quite

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 153

evident, as one reads on, that this whole laborious investiga
tion of the "Entstehung" would not have been written if its
author had been more intimately acquainted with the people
about which he is writing.22 It is not only easy to see the
"Tendenz" which produced these documents; it is impossible not
to see it, for one who is familiar with the literature which is most
nearly related. On p. 51 Meyer concedes that 6:12a cannot be
the genuine utterance of a Persian king, and accordingly decides
that a "jtidischer Eiferer" inserted it in the original document.
But may not such an "Eiferer" have written more than single
verses? The Chronicler composed the Cyrus edict in chap. 1, and
doubtless with a motive. May not a similar motive have led some
one of his fellows to compose other edicts?

During the Greek period, the Jewish religion found itself on
trial for its life. The children of Israel now saw, as never before,
how small and despised a part of humanity they were. Greek
thought and culture, especially, had made great inroads. The
Dispersion, which had assumed great proportions even in the
Persian period,23 now threatened to put a speedy end to the national
existence. To crown all, the glory of Jerusalem, so long the center
and heart of the Jewish religion, began to be dimmed. There
was a temple (as we now know) in Egypt; another, more recently
established, on Mount Gerizim; and very likely still others in
Babylonia and elsewhere. It is no wonder that the zealous Jews
of Jerusalem did wThat they could to stem the tide, and to establish
beyond all question the supremacy of the mother church. It was
this impulse, primarily, which produced the whole "history" which
the Chronicler wrote, and which gave the motive for composing
these Persian documents and many others of the same kind. They
are an eminently characteristic product of the Greek period.

I can think of no better way of setting forth the "tendency"
of these documents than to quote one or two recent characteriza
tions of similar writings belonging to this same period. Schiirer,
Geschichte*, III, 468, speaking of the Letter of Aristeas, says:

22 Professor Meyer takes his predecessors to task (pp. 4 f., 70 f.) for their too exclusive
attention to Palestine and the Old Testament, to the neglect of Persian history especially.
It is true that the tendency to take the narrow view is strong; and Old Testament scholars
may well feel grateful to Meyer for the many new points of view which he has given, as well
as for his vigorous and clear presentation of his side of the argument. But the prime requi
site, after all, is knowledge of the Jews.

23 So I wrote in i,.,e of my lectures on the Second Isaiah, delivered at Harvard University
in 1905. Meyer, p. 67: "Eine jilclische Diaspora gab es damals noch nicht." The matter is of
course of the most vital importance to any theory of the "restoration."

154 EZKA STUDIES

"Diese Iiihaltsiibersicht zeigt, dass der Zweck der Erzahlung
keineswegs die erzahlte Geschichte an sich 1st, sondern
diese Geschichte, insofern sie lehrt, welche Hochach-
tung und Bewunderung fur das jtidische Gesetz und
das Judenthum tiberhaupt selbst heidnische Autori-
taten wie der Konig Ptolemaus und sein Gesandter
Aristeas hegten. Denn gerade darin gipfelt die Tendenz des
Ganzen, dass hier dem jiidischen Gesetze aus heidnischem
Munde ein Lob zubereitet wird." Here is a motive, and a very
easily comprehensible one, which could have produced just such
official utterances as those which we find in the book of Ezra.
Very similar are the terms in which Holscher, Quellen des Josephus,
p. 44, describes a considerable group of "official" documents and
allied narratives dealing with the Persian and Greek periods,
which he believes Josephus to have derived from Alexander Poly-
histor: "All diesen Geschichten gemeinsam ist . . . . die ausge-
sprochene Tendenz, das Judentum zu verherrlichen: es soil
illustriert werden, wie die Konige der Weltreiche dem Judentum
huldigen, wie sie fur Tempel und Kultur Sorge tragen, wie sie in
Jerusalem anbeten, wie sie offiziell dort ftir sich beten lassen. Sie
betragen sich als musterhafte Proselyten; sie beschenken den
Tempel, sie gewahren den Juden Privilegien und Steuererlasse.
Gerade dies letztere kehrt immer wieder; darum auch all die
Edikte, die ftir diese Quelle charakteristisch sind. Das andere,
was die Legenden mit Vorliet)e behandeln, ist das Verhaltnis von
Juden und Samaritanern. Die Juden erscheinen dabei stets als
Muster der Frommigkeit und Treue, die Samaritaner aber als
heuchlerisch und boshaft; die letzteren ziehen denn auch stets,
wie die Quelle zeigt, den ktirzeren."

No better characterization of the Aramaic documents in Ezra
is needed than these two quotations furnish. Almost every single
one of the features here enumerated is to be found in the Old
Testament book; and what is more, there is no material in any
of the Ezra documents which does not directly serve one
or more of the purposes here named. The exaltation of
.the Jews and their religion by foreign kings and magnates; the
triumph over the Samaritans; the oft-repeated and emphasized
proof that Jerusalem is the one legitimate seat of the cultus;
the claim of especial perquisites and privileges for the clergy in
particular; these all are not present incidentally in the docu-

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 155

ments, they are all that the documents contain. To go into detail
here would involve writing out pretty much the whole of their
contents. The strong Jewish coloring is everywhere (even in
the unnecessary laudation of the Jews by their enemies, 4:20;
5:11 f.), and permeates the whole fabric; the worn-out subterfuge
of an "Ueberarbeitung" will not avail here.

But the Jewish character of these documents is not the only
count in the indictment. Against their genuineness is also to be
put down, that they show no sign of intimate acquaintance with
the history of the Persian period. The Jewish apologist, writing
in the Greek period, found himself confronted with two prin
cipal questions which he must needs answer, and answer con
clusively. They were the following : ( 1 ) How did it happen that
(as known from Haggai and Zechariah) the temple at Jerusalem
was not suitably built and completed until the time of Darius?
and (2) If Jerusalem and Judea were completely depopulated by
the Chaldeans (as is asserted in II Kings 24:14; 25:26(1), etc.),
what manner of men were the Jews of the second temple ? Whence
did they come ? Were they a mixed rabble from the surrounding
districts? Might not even the Samaritans be of better Jewish
blood, after all, as they claimed to be? We have before us, in
the Chronicler's history, an answer to these two questions; an
answer which began with Adam and was worked out with minute
elaboration down into the latter part of the Persian period. The
Aramaic documents (by whomsoever composed) are obviously an
important part of the same answer;24 and it is equally obvious that
every particle of the material which they contain could have been
derived either directly or indirectly from Haggai, Zechariah, and
II Kings 25, with the aid of such information as to Persian things
as could be had in any city of Syria or Palestine at any time in
the Greek period.*5 If anyone asserts that these documents in
Ezra display more knowledge of the Persian court, or of condi
tions in the Persian realm, than is displayed in the books of
Daniel, Esther, and Tobit, he asserts what is not true.

2* See further below, p. 160.

25 It is obvious why the "return" was'ropresented as taking place under Cyrus, and
also, why Cyrus should have been supposed to furnish money for the building of the temple.
This was the beginning of the new (Persian) regime, under which the temple was actually
built and completed; the natural turning-point was here. And as for the royal aid, how
else could these returning exiles, entering a desolate land and a ruined city, have under
taken their task? Su.A reflections as these first resulted in definite theories at about the
middle of the third century B. c., so far as our sources enable us to judge. Com
pare what was said above, p. 153, in regard to the Greek period.

156 EZRA STUDIES

An important conclusion stated by Meyer, p. 74, deserves to
be especially emphasized: " Diese Thatsache .... lehrt, dass es
tiber das ganze erste Jahrhundert der nachexilischen Geschichte
bis auf Ezra und Nehemia herab keinerlei Nachrichten und kein-
erlei Tradition gab mit Ausnahme dessen, was in den erhaltenen
Urkunden Ezra 4-6 und in den gleichzeitigen Propheten stand."
That is, aside from these same more than suspicious "Urkunden,"
there is nothing whatever to show that any genuine tradition of
the early Persian period was preserved in Jerusalem. Even this
support is denied them.26

Once more. There are numerous perfectly plain bits of evi
dence showing that the documents, in the form which we have,
are not what they profess to be. These are (briefly): (1) The
wording. Aside from the specifically Jewish phrases, and the
peculiar vocabulary of the Chronicler, the comparison of 6 : 5 with
5:14(!) shows conclusively that we are dealing, at least at this
single but crucial point, with made-up documents. (2) The
language. As will be shown below, the Aramaic of Ezra is not
at all that of the fifth century B. c. (3) The names of the kings.
The form of the name "Artaxerxes" which is employed in Ezra is
not above suspicion; and the name "Nebuchadrezzar" appears in
the form (written with n) which is characteristic of the Greek
period. (4) The documents are not dated. Genuine docu
ments would have borne dates ; and it is unlikely that any copyist
or editor would ever have omitted such .an extremely interesting
and important detail.

The final statement of the case, then, is this. Here are docu
ments which from their wording cannot possibly be regarded as
true copies of genuine originals ; written in a dialect which belongs
to a time much later than the one which they profess to represent ;
containing no facts or materials not obtainable in the Greek
period, and unsupported by any tradition from the Persian period ;
found in the most untrustworthy of all Hebrew histories; them
selves written with a manifest tendency; and finding their only
close parallels in numerous writings of about the same time which

2fi So far as the " Urkunde " 7 : 12-26 is concerned, it is of course customary to find sup
port for it in the "Ezra memoirs" which immediately follow. As a matter of fact, the one
is precisely as "genuine" as the other. As I have already demonstrated, the whole Ezra
story was composed by the Chronicler, with no other apparent basis than his own imagina
tion (my Composition, pp. 14-29, 57-62). Meyer treats these Chronicler tales, and some of the
worthless lists as well, as trustworthy material ; with the result that the most of his book
is simply built on air. Wellhausen's Geschichte, in the chapters dealing with this period, is
not much better.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 157

are acknowledged to be inventions — and we are asked to pro
nounce them 'genuine, at least in substance' ! The theory of their
authenticity, in any sense whatever, has evidently not a leg to
stand on.

On p. 43, in speaking of the Tattenai correspondence in Ezr.,
chap. 5, Meyer says: "Wer die Urkunde verwirft, thut dies denn
auch nicht aus inneren Grtinden, sondern weil er den Tempelbau
unter Kyros oder richtiger den Befehl des Kyros den Tempel wie-
deraufzubauen fur unhistorisch hielt, oder weil er die Nachricht
von der Ruckkehr der Juden unter Kyros verwirft." But this
is hardly fair to the scholars who have written on the subject.
Probably not one of the number cares a straw for his most cher
ished theory in comparison with finding out the truth as to the
origin and character of these records. We are in the direst need
of information as to the history of the Jews in the Persian period,
and every scrap of material that promises help ought to be treas
ured and put to use. But no extremity of need can outweigh the
obligation to follow the evidence. So the verdict in regard to the
Aramaic part of Ezra must be, "that it contains, not a series of
remarkable utterances by heathen kings and officers to the glory
of the Jews and their religion, but a kind of literature that abounds
during this period of Jewish history. So far as historical value
is concerned, it stands in all respects on the same plane with Dan.
2-6 and the book of Esther." 21

n. THE CHRONICLER'S PART IN THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS

The letter of Artaxerxes to Ezra, 7 : 12-26, was created entire
by the Chronicler, like the context in which it stands. The nar
rative which introduces it, 7:1-11, is the work of his hand, and
so also is that which follows, 7:27f. ; 8:1-36, as I have shown
elsewhere (Composition, pp. 16 ff., 20 f.). There is no single
verse in all the Chronicler's history which is more unmistakably
his own property than 7 : 28. The letter itself is marked through
out its whole extent by his favorite ideas and phrases, and his
peculiar lexical and syntactical usages, manifest even in their
Aramaic dress. See the notes below, passim. It is especially
interesting to observe how closely this letter parallels two of the
Chronicler's documents which precede it; namely, the royal edict
in chap. 1 and fhe royal letter to the "eparchs" of the Trans-

a7 Composition, p. 8.

158 EZRA STUDIES

flumen, now preserved in I Esdras 4:476-56, but originally fol
lowing immediately upon Ezra 1:1-11, as I have shown. Thus,
1:2 is reproduced in 7:14; 1:3 in 7:13 and the last clause of
vs. 15 ("who dwells in Jerusalem"); 1:4 reappears in 7:15, 16
(including the "silver and gold and free-will offerings," offered
"for the house of God which is in Jerusalem"). And again:
7:17 had its counterpart in I Esdr. 4:52 (and also in Ezr. 6:5,
nota bene) ; 7:18 corresponds to 4:54ff. ; vs. 19 brings back
again Ezr. 1:7 ff. ; vs. 20 corresponds to I Esdr. 4:51, and vs. 21
to vss. 476, 48. Vss. 22 f. are again similar to I Esdr. 4:51f.,
besides reproducing very noticeably Ezr. 6:9f. And finally,
vs. 24 is a repetition of I Esdr. 4:53-56 (cf. also 49 f.), the per
quisites of the priests, Levites, and gate-keepers. That is, the
decrees of Cyrus in favor of Sheshbazzar and his company are
here reproduced in substance, and even with a striking repeti
tion of the wording of whole phrases, in the decree of
Artaxerxes for Ezra and his followers.

Another passage composed in Aramaic by the Chronicler is
6:15-18, directly continued in vss. 19 ff. by his Hebrew narrative.
That vs. 15 belongs to him is proved sufficiently by the exact
date which it contains, coupled with the fact that in vs. 14 the
preceding narrative comes to a natural close. I was formerly
inclined to assign the last three words of vs. 14 to him also
(Composition, p. 10), but now believe that it is better to regard
them as the work of a mere glossator. The Chronicler has written
out the story of this whole period of history with some care, and
it is hardly fair to him to accuse him, unnecessarily, of this bit
of carelessness. He should at least be given the benefit of the
doubt.

The work of the Chronicler's hand is to be seen, once more,
in the two verses 6:9, 10, as I have already shown with abundant
proof (Composition, p. 10).

These are the only parts of the Aramaic of Ezra which can
surely be traced to the Chronicler. The question of course sug
gests itself, whether he may not also have been the author of
6:6-14; the grounds of the suspicion being (1) the presence of
two verses written by him in the middle of this section; and (2)
the strange transition from vs. 5 to vs. 6, the words of Cyrus
being followed, without any warning, by those of Darius; which
certainly resembles the heedless leap in chap. 7, from vs. 26 to

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 159

vs. 27, where Artaxerxes is suddenly interrupted by Ezra. But
it is far more probable that there has been an accidental omission
between verses 5 and 6 in chap. 6. Even the Chronicler himself
would hardly have made so intolerably abrupt a transition as this.
Moreover, there are no manifest traces of his presence in vss. 6-8
and 11-14, though in a passage of this length, in any writing of
his, it is usually easy to recognize his handiwork. It is to be
observed, also, that when vss. 9 f. are removed, the passage reads
smoothly and consistently. The original narrator is concerned
only with the building of the temple; there is no evidence,
aside from these two verses, that he also intended to represent
Cyrus and Darius as providing for the details of the cultus — to
say nothing of the "bullocks, rams and lambs" and the "wheat,
salt, wine and oil" which the Chronicler is so fond of parading
before us; see I Chron. 29:21; II Chron. 29:21, 22, 32; Ezr.
6:17; 7:17, 22; 8:35, and cf. II Chron. 2:9, 14.

The question, which has sometimes been raised, whether the
whole Aramaic section, 4:8 — 6:14, may not also have been
written by the Chronicler, I have once more examined with care;
with the result of satisfying myself completely that the hypothesis
is an untenable one. The manner of the transition in 4:7 f. (in
whatever way these verses are treated) shows distinctly that the
work of another narrator begins here. The Chronicler, compos
ing the narrative freely, could not possibly have proceeded in
this way. It is also incredible that he could have kept his
identity concealed throughout this long section. He could hardly
have brought himself to leave the Levites, singers, porters, and
Nethinim completely out of sight for nearly three whole chapters ;
and even if that had been possible, he could not have abandoned
to this extent his own vocabulary and style.28

I formerly thought that the interpolation 4:9 f. might be
attributed to the Chronicler, and regarded him as the probable
author of 4:24; see my Composition, pp. 7-9. The former of
these passages will be discussed below; the latter can best be
considered here.

So far as internal evidence is concerned, there is no reason for
regarding the Chronicler as the author of 4:24. The phrase

MAs I have remarked elsewhere, the Chronicler's peculiar habits in tbe use of words,
phrases, and construct! is appear everywhere, and in quite uniform distribution, through
out Chron. -Ezr. -Neh., excepting in (1) the parts copied verbally from Samuel and Kings;
(2) this Aramaic source, Ezr. 4:8—6:14; (3) Nehemiah, chaps. 1, 2, 4—6.

160 EZKA STUDIES

"jb*3 is found also written by another hand in 6:14, as I
have just shown, and it probably was in common use. The only
argument which needs to be considered is the one which aims to
show that the verse is an editorial patch. The argument rests
on two main assumptions: (1) that this Aramaic narrative is a
contemporary account, and trustworthy history; and (2) that
vs. 24, which speaks of the building of the temple, is out
of keeping with the preceding documents, which speak only of
the building of the city. But these two assumptions are both
mistaken.

I have already shown that the order of the Persian kings,
Cyrus, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I, Darius II, in these chapters, 4 if. —
and therefore, of course, the order of the chapters themselves — is
the only correct one, according to the view which prevailed in
Jerusalem in the Greek period. Both the substance and the
progress of the narrative here are precisely what we should
expect, when the purposes of the narrator are taken into account.
As already remarked (above, p. 155), the author of these "official"
documents and the narrative containing them was concerned with
two important matters: the delay in building the temple, and the
relation of the Jews to the Samaritans. These enemies of the
Jews undertook, on two different occasions, to hinder the building
of the sanctuary in Jerusalem, by writing to the Persian king.
On the first occasion, when they were shrewd enough to speak
only of the city as a whole,29 without specifying the temple in
particular, they had the good luck to gain their point, and the
building was stopped. On the second occasion, when other
officials, less cautious, wrote only in regard to the temple, the
attempt not only failed, but even proved to be of great assistance
to the Jews, for it resulted in the recovery of long-lost documents
which led the king at once to take the temple in Jerusalem under
his special patronage. From the literary point of view — and
we need no other — this is all quite according to rule; in fact, it
is exactly the way in which any story or play, ancient or modern,
would conceive the course of events in order to make it as dra
matically effective as possible. At first the villain triumphs, not

29 It is customary to say that the two letters in 4:11-22 deal with the building of the
city wall. This is not the case, however. It is the building up of the city that is described,
and that the king orders to be stopped (vs. 21). Of course the city walls are also specified
by the Samaritans; and of course the prohibition of further building included
the temple, at which the Samaritans were especially aiming.

THE AEAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 161

by fair means, but through misrepresentation; but in
the end he is overwhelmed.

This being the case, it is obvious that such a verse as 24,
standing where it now stands, was essential to the original narra
tive. The way in which it attaches itself directly to vs. 23 is
evident, and also the fact that it is absolutely indispensable as the
preparation for 5: 1.30 The composer of this Jewish-Samaritan
drama could not have devised a sentence which would more
exactly have satisfied his immediate purposes. The question of
its authorship can therefore not fairly be raised at all.

In conclusion: I believe that the Chronicler incorporated this
Aramaic writing in its entirety, and that we have it in substan
tially its original form. A passage has been accidentally lost
between 6:5 and 6:6, as already remarked. The story probably
began with some such formula as [lalTp iOb/,2 fcWVJSIDPIiYltf "I"J"I2]
D3?13 b3D DV7"I , and so on as in 4:8. The Chronicler, when he
wrote his own introductory verse, 4:7 (as emended below), neces
sarily omitted the words which I have inclosed in brackets.

There were doubtless many such popular narratives written,
after the same manner in which popular and edifying tales have
always been written. The one which the Chronicler chose to
incorporate was the work of a man of his own school of ideas, who
in all probability lived and wrote at about the same time as he,
namely in the middle of the third century B. c.31-

III. THE ARAMAIC OF THE BOOK OF EZRA

On this point it is now possible to be very brief, thanks to the
recent discoveries of Aramaic papyri in Egypt. All the Aramaic
of Daniel and Ezra belongs to the dialect of the second
and third centuries B. c. This includes (1) the Aramaic

30 It is altogether unlikely that the date, "in the second year of Darius," stood also in
5:1 (as I once suggested as possible, Comp., p. 12, note 1). As for I Esdr. 6:1, of course the
date there had to be inserted by the redactor who interpolated the Story of the Three
Youths and transposed the Artaxerxes letters. The curious theory (now quite generally
adopted) that the passage 5:1, 2 was not written by the author of 5:3ff. needs no additional
refutation. Of course the one who knew (5:14) of the prophecy of Haggai and Zechariah
knew also (from Hag. 1:12, 14, etc.) that Zerubbabel and Jeshua were the leaders in the
work of building. Chap. 6 : 7 shows the same thing, plainly enough.

31 It is fair to draw this conclusion from the fact that this Aramaic tale presupposes
(not only in 4: 12, 15 f., but also, by implication, in 5:12ff.) the theory of a return of "the
Babylonian exiles." Inasmuch as every other mention of such a return, in the whole Old
Testament down to lobit 14:5, comes from the Chronicler himself (Composition, pp.62f.), it
is probable that the theory originated in his own generation, in the school to which he
belonged.

162 EZRA STUDIES

written by the Chronicler; (2) that of the Story of the Samaritan
Intrigues, which he incorporates; (3) the language of Dan.,
chaps. 2-7. 32 The date at which the Chronicler wrote may prop
erly be taken as the representative one for the period covered by
all these documents. The Aramaic story which he edits may be
a trifle older, though it probably belongs to his own generation.33
One chapter, at least, of the Aramaic part of Daniel was written
nearly a century later. From the linguistic point of view, this is
all thoroughly homogeneous ; there is no possibility of any scientific
division into "earlier" and "later" sections. All these writings,
and all in just the same way, represent a certain stage in the
development of Western Aramaic; there is not a single particular,
major or minor, in which the one of them can be said with con
fidence to belong to a more advanced stage of development than
its fellow.34 Any one of the group might be designated the earliest,
or the latest, with equal right.

This is by no means a new discovery, so far as the identity of
the Aramaic of Ezra with that of Daniel is concerned. On this
point the Semitic scholars of the present generation are practi
cally agreed. There has been a strange failure, however, to draw
the correct conclusion as to the date represented by this stage of
the dialect. We have had for comparison a good many Aramaic
inscriptions dating all the way from the eighth century B. c. down
ward, including material sufficient to give us a tolerably clear idea
of some of the most characteristic changes which took place in the

32 In my own opinion, which I have often expressed, the first six chapters of Daniel are
older than the rest of the book, which was written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. But
there is no difference between the Aramaic of chaps. 2-6 and that of chap. 7.

33 The Aramaic Story of the Three Youths, as I have already shown, belongs approximately
to this same period, but is probably older than any of these other documents, dating from
near the beginning of the third century.

34 The fact that the suffix forms DD~ and DJ"T~ (instead of "|1D~~ and "p!"V~) do not
happen to be used in Dan., as they are frequently in Ezr., can hardly be made an exception
to this statement, since the forms ending in Q continue to be found in both Jewish and
gentile Aramaic until long after the time when the book of Daniel was given its final form
(e. g., in the Jerusalem Targums, and in Nabatean inscriptions dated in the first century A. D.).
The Chronicler uses both the Q and the "j suffixes, and the one about as often as the other.

Similarly, the preformative fc< , instead of Hi in the stems of the verb, is represented
by several examples in Daniel, but does not appear in Ezra. But we seem to have the same
thing in the form "^'•WTZJiS , Ezr. 4 : 15, 19, which is apparently a verbal noun from the hith-
pa'alof *YllD ; cf. ^iPtU'D in Dan. 6:15. Moreover, the process has already begun in the
time of the papyri from Elephantine; see the hithpe'el form "pirHCX (1st pers. plur. perf.),
in Cowley's K, 2. Notice also such parallel phenomena as the name mPTEIX (for "in ) in
H, 18, and the pronoun "pUfcfc in Ezra.

It is very probable, indeed, that Dan., chap. 2-6 was written somewhat later than the
Aramaic parts of Ezra; but it is not safe to say that this is proved by the language.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 163

language, from the Euphrates to Egypt. The evidence has been
quite sufficient to show that our "biblical Aramaic" could hardly
be dated so early as the fourth century B. c., to say nothing of a
still earlier date. Yet scholars have persisted in looking at the
Ezra "documents" through the medium of a theory, and have
found it possible to hold the view that the language in which they
are written belongs to the sixth and fifth centuries,35 while dating
the Aramaic of Daniel in the second century — as though the
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum did not exist.

Now, however, the papyri of Assuan and Elephantine have
given us abundant material confirming most decisively the witness
of the inscriptions. The first publishers of these texts have not
made the matter plain, to be sure ; in fact, what they have written
would rather tend to mislead inquirers in regard to this point.
Sachau, Drei aramdische Papyrusurkunden cms Elephantine
(1907), p. 3, writes: "Die Sprache, in der sie geschrieben sind, ist
in alien wesentlichen Stticken identisch mit derjenigen der ara-
maischen Kapitel in den Buchern Esra und Daniel, und ihre
Phraseologie bietet nahe Beruhrungen mit derjenigen der amtlichen
Urkunden im Esrabuche." And Sayce and Cowley had previously
written in their publication, Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan
(1906) , p. 20: "Much of the interest of the texts lies in the many
points of contact which they show with Palestinian Aramaic as
represented by the books of Ezra and Daniel. The differences
are due no doubt partly to the difference of locality, partly also
perhaps to the popular style of the deeds as compared with the
literary style of Biblical Aramaic" (the italics are mine). But
this merely obscures the true state of the case. Of course the
language of all these writings, biblical and extra-biblical, is
Aramaic and (more or less) Jewish. The "points of contact"
could be taken for granted; the points of difference are what
we most need to consider.

One of the most significant facts in the history of the develop
ment of the old West- Aramaic dialect is the gradual replacement
of certain sibilants by their corresponding dentals. In our oldest
Aramaic inscriptions, including those (such as the coins of

35 Those who think that these documents are genuine, and wore preserved in an archive,
must of course hold that they are written in their original dialect. To suppose that they
have*been systematically altered throughout, in such a way as carefully to remove all those
traces by which they ~ould be recognized as genuine, is to attribute to the Chronicler or to
his predecessors an altogether unexampled stupidity, especially since the archaisms would
not in the least impair the intelligibility of the documents.

164 EZRA STUDIES

Mazaeus) which date from the fourth century, for example, the
relative pronoun is always "7 , and the root of the demonstratives
is T ; in all the inscriptions (from whatever land) dating from
the third century B. c. or later, the relative pronoun is always
"H , and the demonstrative root is 1 . The condition of things in
biblical Aramaic, as regards the sibilants and dentals in general,
is altogether like that which is found in classical Syriac and the
Aramaic of the Targums; that is, it belongs to the final stage
of the development. In the important group of inscriptions from
Zenjirli and Nerab, dating from the seventh and eighth centuries
B. c., the vocabulary has not yet begun to be "Aramaic" in
the matter of these dentals and sibilants. It stands at the oppo
site extreme, in this regard, from the vocabulary of biblical
Aramaic.

The Assuan-Elephantine papyri, which cover the greater part
of the fifth century, dating from 471 to 408 B. c., furnish just the
added information which was needed, for they occupy, in the
most unequivocal manner, the middle ground between the
language of the old inscriptions named and that of the Aramaic
of the Old Testament. The relative pronoun is ^7 , everywhere,
and all but invariably. In one text, Cowley's E, 11. 11 and 16,
"H is found, in the combination "Ob"H . Similarly, the demon
strative root, in all the papyri, is T , not "T . We have the forms
H2T , "pT , "JT , XT , ^5T , a multitude of them in the aggregate ;
while forms written with 1 occur twice, $37 and ^Dl , both
found in the same text. In the case of nouns and verbs, the
"Aramaic" transformation of the susceptible classes of sibilants
is already well under way; we have HfT (not HIT"1), ITU!, Qln ,
etc., also *O1, ?TI "arm," mD , tfnHT2 , etc.; but these side
by side with &UJ-JT , Sachau I, 12,28; II, 10, and pDT (while in
Ezra we have -pDl and WTOl), Sachau III, 1 f. That is, in
the Jewish Aramaic of Egypt which prevailed so late as 408 B. c.
the characteristically Aramaic forms of the demonstrative and
relative pronouns were only just beginning to make their appear
ance, while the more extensive change of which this is only a
single manifestation had not progressed far. From the way in
which this corresponds to the progress of the same dialect in
northern Syria, we can draw a sure conclusion as to the Aramaic
which was written at this time in Judea. It is beyond reasonable
doubt that if we could come now into the possession of specimens

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 165

of Palestinian Aramaic of the fourth century B. c., we should
find that during this period the "I-forms of the pronouns gradually
gained the upper hand, appearing only occasionally in the first
part of the century, but becoming the rule during its closing
years. Then later on, in the third century, was reached that
settled state of things, in this regard, which we see henceforth in
biblical Aramaic, the inscriptions of Nabatea and Palmyra, and
the other later representatives of the western dialect. Thus the
linguistic evidence agrees entirely with the conclusions reached
on other grounds.

In numerous other particulars, however, the biblical dialect is
itself seen to be in a transitional stage, showing the beginning,
or the early stages, of certain tendencies which became fixed at a
later day. For example, in the Egyptian papyri, and previously,
the preformative of the causative stem is H , not tf ; similarly in
the other derived stems which begin with a breathing. In bib
lical Aramaic several of these forms begin with S (see the note
above) ; in the Megillaih Tanith and some of the other old
specimens of the later Jewish Aramaic the forms written with H
are rare; so also in Nabatean inscriptions; later still, they dis
appear altogether. In the use of the forms T2»"i , "pT-Sl for the
pronoun of the 3d pers. sing, masc., biblical Aramaic agrees with
the fifth-century papyri (YQ»"I). But in both Daniel and Ezra
appears the form "plfc* , which soon after became universal (with
slight modifications here and there). The use of the proleptic
suffix-pronoun, so characteristic of the Aramaic dialects from
Ezra and Daniel onward, seems hardly to have begun as early as
the fifth century, judging from the papyri and the inscriptions.
Another instructive instance is found in the forms of the con
struct infinitive of the derived verbal stems. For these infini
tives, two nearly identical abstract noun-forms, A nbl2j2[7j], etc.,
and B ^iblOpf/j], etc., are chiefly used in the various stages of
the language. For the absolute infinitive, forms of type A
are everywhere used in biblical Aramaic, and continue to be
regular in the Jewish dialects. Forms of type B are regular in
classical Syriac, and appear in other gentile dialects; e. g.,
"QtDHtlpi in the Palmy rene Tariff, lie, 1. 4. For the construct
infinitive, on the other hand, forms from the type B early gained
the upper hand, even in Jewish Aramaic. Doubtless there was
a time when constructs formed from A were commonly used, but

166 EZRA STUDIES

we see in Ezra and Daniel only the vanishing traces of such a
usage. In Ezr. 4:22 we find npT'Hb , and in Dan. 5:12 rri~K ;
though some of our recent commentators and editors have wished
to "emend" away these most interesting and important examples!
Similar forms appear now and then in the later Jewish dialects
of Palestine (Dalman, Gramm.2, 279), see for example Dalman's
Dialektproben, 16, 1. 16, "^PingEE ,36

The number of these illustrations might easily be increased
still further. But enough has been said to show clearly the
stage of linguistic development, in general, which is occupied by
the Aramaic sections of Ezra.

IV. PROPER NAMES AND FOREIGN WORDS

1. Proper Names

In beginning this brief treatment of the proper names which
are characteristic of the Aramaic part of Ezra, a preliminary
word of a general character may be permitted. The names which
Jewish parents in the Persian and Greek periods gave to their
children were not always, and perhaps not often, given because
of their significance. Doubtless there had been a time, in early
Hebrew history, when the etymology of the name was the prime
consideration leading to the choice of it; but that time had been
long outgrown, and the Jews, like other peoples, had become
accustomed to choose names simply because they liked the sound
of them, or because they were borne by relatives or friends, or
for some good omen which (quite irrespective of their origin)
they were supposed to carry. This fact is especially evident
from the extent to which foreign names were given to the chil
dren of Jewish parents. When a Jewish narrator chooses such
names as "Esther" and "Mordecai" for his hero and heroine, it
is plain that names borrowed from the surrounding peoples were
used in those days very much as they are in the most civilized
nations at the present time. And all the indications which we
have point in this direction. The Chronicler's lists (compiled
by him presumably from the names of the prominent Jews of his
own time) contain a considerable number of names like "Elam,"

36 Noldeke, Manddische Grammatik, p. 142, n. 3, regards the final -a of these absolute
infinitives of type A as the emphatic, rather than the feminine, ending. It seems to
me that the evidence here presented, in view of the history of the absolute state in old
Aramaic and the analogy of the infinitives ending in *V— , is decidedly against this view.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 167

" Pahath-Moab," "Nebo," and "Bagoi" (""ED), all of which
designate true Israelites. The writer of the stories in the first
part of Daniel names one of his heroes *G3 "Q3? , a name which
certainly would never have been selected if it had not been well
known as Jewish ; so also when the THQJIS father Mattathias names
one of his boys "Gaddi" (frcmf the heathen god),37 it is evident
that the time had long passed when names had to be taken at
their exact face value. We should suppose, moreover, on general
grounds, that during the period of Persian rule Babylonian and
Persian names would have become popular in Jerusalem and
Judea, as well as among the Jews of the Dispersion. This does,
in fact, seem to have been the case, as the evidence from Pales
tine, Babylonia, and Egypt shows us.

It has been quite usual among Old Testament scholars, how
ever, to assume that a Babylonian name means a Babylonian, a
Persian name a Persian, and so on. Thus Cowley, Papyri, p. 13,
speaking of the names which occur in these Jewish-Aramaic rec
ords from Upper Egypt: "In some cases the father and son bear
names belonging to different languages, which points to racial
intermarriage. Thus Satibarzanes is the son of Athar-ili, a name
which is itself Assyrianized Aramaean, and Bagadates — the Persian
Baga-data — is the son of the Babylonian Nabu-kuduri-[uzurJ.
The Babylonians, indeed, seem to have been as numerous at Syene
as the Persians, and like them could hold official posts." But this
is, I think, a mistaken view, even where the Jews are not con
cerned at all. Even in those days, a name was common property,
to some extent, and available for any who fancied it. In regard
to Jewish names Cowley says (ibid., p. 37) : "The name of Hosea's
father, Peti-khnum, the gift of Khnum, seems to imply that the
son was a Jewish proselyte ..... In mediaeval and modern
times, however, it is customary to find Jews using two names, one
Hebrew and one vernacular for ordinary purposes. Possibly the
practice had already begun,3* and Peti-khnum and As-hor were
the non-Hebrew names borne by Jews who were rather lax in their
religious views." But we are under no necessity of supposing

37 See the EncycL BibL, article "Maccabees," § 1, col. 2851, where I have tried to show
that the names Judah, Simon, Eleazar, Jonathan, etc., were the official names adopted
by the Hasmonean princes, not the names given them by their father.

38Sachau finds s^ch a double name in the Elephantine letter, concluding that 'Anani
P2-7), the brother of the high priest in Jerusalem, bore also the Persian name "
But the more natural trans. (11. 18 f.) is "Ostan, the brother of Anani."

168 EZRA STUDIES

that the men bearing these names were either gentiles or "Jews
who were lax in their religious views," any more than we need
suppose that every Jew named "Isidor" is either the child of
Egyptian parents or else a worshiper of Isis! Of course it is
true that the population of the large cities both in Egypt and in
Palestine at this time was a mixture of many races and national
ities; it is also true, doubtless, that some attention was paid to the
etymology of names. As a rule, Persians bore Persian names,
Jews Hebrew names, and so on; but considerable latitude must
be left for exceptions to the rule. Sachau, Papyrusurkunden,
p. 37, writes: "Wenn nun Sanaballat seinen Sohnen. judaische
Namen gab, so war er vermutlich von Geburt ein Nichtjudaer, der
spater zum Judentum tibergetreten war, oder er war von Geburt
Jude und hatte wegen irgendeiner Rticksicht auf die persische

Herrschaft einen babylonischen Namen angenornmen

Warum Sanaballat nicht gleich einen persischen Namen anstatt
eines babylonischen angenommen, ist nicht ersichtlich." But it
is probable that Sanaballat was either a Hebrew of the North-
Palestinian stock, or else of Jewish origin, and quite possible in
either case that he had borne this name from his childhood. It
may well be that the name was borne by many in the land, including
some devout Jews.39 "Zerubbabel" is a good Babylonian name,
but was probably given, without much thought as to its etymology,
to the Jewish boy at his birth. Similarly, "Sheshbazzar" had in
all likelihood been naturalized as a Jewish name.

Since the interpretation of not a few of the proper names in the
Ezra documents depends on an understanding of the popular Jewish
notions in regard to the origin and history of the Samaritans,
a preliminary word on that subject will be in place.

The Samaritans claimed to be, and probably were in the main,
a Hebrew people of fairly pure blood.40 The Jews, on the con
trary, maddened by the pretensions of this rival temple and its
adherents, insisted that the Samaritans were no Hebrews at all.
The Jewish tradition as to the origin of this northern community
attached itself mainly to II Kings 17:24-41; cf. 17:3-6 and
18:9-11. The narrative as we have it is not historical, but merely

39 NOldeke, Zeittchrift fur Assyriologie, 1907, p. 204, note 2, says in regard to one of the
names in Nehemiah :" Ein echter Ammoniter hatte kaum rTmt2 geheissen." But do we
know so definitely as this what an "echter Ammoniter" was, at that time, and how strict
the Ammonites were in the matter of names'?

40 So modern anthropologists have generally decided.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 169

fanciful, and appears to date, at least in its present form, from a
time later than the Samaritan secession. Be that as it may, it is
certain that the standard Jewish tradition asserted that the people
who constituted the rival church were a mixed rabble brought into
the land by the Assyrian king Shalmanassar. Then it was,
according to the tradition, that the great transfer of peoples took
place, the heathen being brought in to take the place of the deported
Israelites; and the author of this deportation is always said to have
been Shalmanassar (cf. Tobit 1:2, 15, 16). The manner in which
Ezr. 4:9 f. attaches itself to the account given in II Kings will
appear below. This being the case, the statement made in Ezr. 4 : 2
is very noticeable and interesting. The reason why the Chronicler
should thus make the Samaritans ascribe their own deportation to
Esarhaddon may be conjectured, however. Very likely he reasoned,
shrewdly enough, that this documentary admission of their own
"heathen" origin would weigh all the heavier against them if it
was manifestly independent of the Jewish tradition.41

The following is a list of the proper names which are charac
teristic of these Aramaic documents in Ezra:

1£2CX 4:10. So the massoretic text, with which the Egyptian
Greek of Ezra, Aaevvacfrap, and the Vulgate, Osnappar, agree.
There is some evidence, however, that this was not the read
ing of the Aramaic te'xt from which Theodotion made his
version, early in the second century A. D. The L text gives
here ^aX^avaa crapes. This is hardly a correction, for the
connection with the narrative in II Kings is not a necessary
one; moreover, the occurrence of the name A%opSav in the
parallel verse 2, just above, shows that no theory was at work
here. The I Esdras fragment does not contain the passage,
which seems to have been interpolated after the time when
the old Greek translation was made (see below). In all

41 The Greek readings of the name in 4:2 are not without interest as characteristic
specimens of text-corruption. The L text of Theodotion has [NjaxopSav; the N coming from
the preceding rj/u.epu>i>, and the A^opSav being a careless haplogram of \aop\abav (cf. the Vul
gate Asorhaddon) . The reading of the I Esdr. fragment was Ao-/3aaape0( !), which originated
as follows: In the old Greek version ""IfPC^ was transliterated by a<rape0u>i/ (or doubtless
originally ao-apeSwi'), and this in the process of transmission lost the ambiguous ending <av
aod received at the beginning an increment which may have been due to dittography, but in
which the recollection of the name 2ao-a/3aoxrap also exercised its influence. The close rela
tionship among the various Hexaplar texts is well illustrated here, both of the blunders
in \<rfta.Ka<f)aO (codd. ^. N, and the Ethiopic) being reproduced, with one extra one, in
I^SX^u^j . Cod. A has the correct reading. The L text gives A.\opSav, a conspicuous
example of contamination from the canonical Greek.

170 EZRA STUDIES

probability, Josephus had a Greek version of it before him
when he wrote, judging from the words of)? .... ayaywv
^aXpavaa-o-dprjs .... Karwtcio-ev ev ^apapela ( Antt. xi, 2, 1).
On the basis of this evidence, as well as on the ground of
general probability, we may venture to restore "Shalmanas-
sar." From the form XDM42 came *IME» , and then
*"l3jC&$ , these changes being only such as have occurred
many times over in the proper names of this book. The
Egyptian Greek here is the result of correction to correspond
with the corrupt reading of our MT.

4:9. The gentilic name of the people of a certain

"nation" (&W3&O from which the Samaritans had been

*•
recruited. Probably "Persians," the initial X having been

transposed by accident from the preceding word.

C^SK 4:9. Another gentilic adjective. Created (on the

basis of the word fcWC^Stf , 5:6; 6:6) by the interpolator

of 4:9 f., in the manner described below, p. 183.

WS Another of the names in the list of 4:9. "Men of

Erech;" perhaps originally ^"Itf (for fcT~) ?

7:12 (cf. 7:1; Neh. 2:1, etc.). The form used in
the massoretic tradition to designate Artaxerxes II Mnemon ;
see the name below.

4:8, 11, 23. The massoretic way of writing the
name of Artaxerxes I Longimanus; that of Artaxerxes II (in
Ezr., chaps. 7, 8; Neh., chaps. 2, 5, 13) being always written
with C . Contrast with this the spelling of the name in the
Jewish papyri of the fifth century B. c., found in Egypt,
where it is always written lECTl^m^ ; so also on the stele
from Assuan, Repertoire d? epigraphie semitique, 438, 1. 4.43

fcrt22 A gentilic name from the list in 4:9. "Men from
Babylon."

fc^n 4:$. Originally the noun "judges," which had been
interpolated in the Aramaic text of 4:11 which lay before

42 It is natural to suppose that the b was as commonly omitted as the A. was in the
Greek. In II Kings 17:3, B has Sa^ei/ouro-ap ; in 18 : 9, A has Sa/xavaoxrap. In Tobit 1 : 2, 15, 16,
both recensions read [2]efejmecr<rap (the 2 from the word ^/xe'pais immediately preceding in
two of the three passages) . In I Esdr. 2 : 11, 14 ; 6 : 17, 19, where the Syrian text substitutes
'• Shalmanassar " for " Sanabassar," Origen's text had Sajuavao-o-ap in 2 : 11 and 14.

*3 It must be remembered, however, that this is the Egyptian form «-f the name, cor
responding to the mnnner of writing it in the hieroglyphic characters. The form given us
by the massoretes differs only slightly from those which we find in the cuneiform records:
Artaksatsu (KB iv, H12, 4), Artaksassu (Stevenson, Assyr. and Bab. Contracts, 198, No. 40,
7), etc.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 171

the "I Esdras" translator; see below. Thence made into
a gentilic adjective by the author and interpolator of vss. 9 f. ;
cf . the note on &T jFlCISX .

4:24; 5:5; 6:1, etc. Darius (Nothus, according to the
view of these Jewish writers). Compare the Egyptian
spelling IflinVI™ , occurring uniformly in the Jewish Ara
maic papyri from Egypt.44

Gentilic name from the list in 4:9. The only name of a
locality which seems to meet the requirements is Ter/oaTroXt?.
This included Antioch, Seleucia, Apamea, and Laodicea
(Strabo, xvi, 749, 750) ; a region which we should expect to
see represented here, since according to II Kings 17:24
Shalmanassar brought the Samaritans not only from Baby
lonia, but also "from Hamath." The fact that the verse
containing the word was interpolated at a comparatively late
day makes it easy to accept this Greek name.

4:8, 17, 23. The name of the D?B b:tt, or "reporter" of
the affairs of the province, who dwelt in Samaria in the time
of Artaxerxes I. An Aramaic name, and one which the
Chronicler is fond of inserting in his lists. The form PdOv-
yu-o?, found in I Esdras, is the result of corruption in the
Greek, PAOYMOC becoming PA0YMOC.
Z3VvZ3 Still another gentilic name from the list in 4:9. Ap
parently "men from Susa." The form is interesting, if the
D really stands for the Persian suffix -ka.

4:8, 17, 23. Name of the secretary who was associated
with Rehum. Evidently the same name as the Babylonian
Samas-a-a, found in Stevenson, Assyrian and Babylonian
Contracts, No. 37, 1. 17. It also appears in Syria at a later
day. The I Esdras reading 2<W\Xio? came from CAMGAIOC
= CAMCAIOC ; i. e., a copyist carelessly put the cross-bar in
the wrong letter.

5 : 14, 16. I have already discussed this name at length,
in dealing with the first chapter of Ezra, and have shown that
the I Esdras reading "Sanabassar" is the result of early
Greek corruption from ^ao-ajSaacrap (above, p. 138). Proba
bly a naturalized Jewish name.

44 Notice also, in th;« connection, that the "documents" in Ezra use the late and incor
rect form "l^S^DISU > written with 2, which prevailed in the Greek period. So in all
three of the passages (o: 12, 14; 6:5) where the name occurs.

172 EZEA STUDIES

"3m^rvJ3 5:3, 6; 6:6, 13. This is probably a miswriting of the
Persian name "fPIiftTS , Satibarzanes, which appears in the
Assuan papyri (Cowley's A, 1. 16, possibly also E, 1. 18).
Perhaps, however, IffiSCfcO-, I star, -j- ^TlD, , the Persian end
ing which appears in the Greek transcription M.t,0popov%avr)S,
Diod. Sic. xvii, 21, 3; Arrian, Anal)., i, 16, 3. As for the
proposal to emend here to '*ini2 , it is not even probable
that this Jewish narrative was ever written in the old
Hebrew characters. It is uncertain, and a matter of small
importance, whether the narrator wished to represent the
bearer of this name as a Persian or as a Samaritan of Per
sian extraction, but the latter is more likely.

"2Piri 5:3, 6; 6:6, 13. A Babylonian name. The equivalent of the
Taddannu which is found in Babylonian records of the time of
Nabunaid and Cyrus (Muss-Arnolt, Dictionary, pp. 1148 f. ).
That the form Tattannu also existed may be taken for granted,
since the verb natdnu (for nadanu) is common, and found
also in proper names.45 Originally an abbreviated (hypo-
coristic) form, cf. the name Nabu-taddannu, Muss-Arnolt, loc.
tit. The pronunciation of the name is correctly transmitted
by the massoretes. That the ®a66avai of cod. A and its
fellows is Theodotion's own transliteration needs no argument ;
the forms QavOavai, TavQavcu, etc., are arbitrary improve
ments. The old Greek translator (represented by I Esdras),
who was a well-read man, conjectured 2wrtWi?9, but the con
jecture is of no value for us.46

The names Db'JO , nTTO , and biOE , 4:6 (MT 7), may
also be mentioned here, though they occur in a verse (the
Chronicler's) which is not written in Aramaic. Db'£2 is appar
ently the Babylonian name Bel-sallim;" cf. Ndbu-sallim
(Stevenson, Assyr. and Bab. Contracts, p. 148), Sin-sallimani

*r> Since this was written, I have seen Clay's article, "Aramaic Indorsements on the
Documents of the Murasu Sons," in the O. T. and Sem. Studies in Memory of W. R. Harper,
Vol. i U90S), pp. 287-321. The name given in his No. 18 (pp. 293, 306) is the very one which is
needed. The document is dated in the second year of Darius II, and the name is Tattannu,
write n "HZ"! in the accompanying Aramaic characters.

*6 Cowley, Assuan Papyri, p. 42, writes : " Two Babylonian contracts of the first and
third years of Darius describe Tatnai as governor of Ebir-nari." This is a mistake, based
on a conjectural emendation of our text which never had any probability.

47 By supposing an Aramaic name Bel-salam, "Bel is peace," we could retain the
massoretic pointing, nbtEH • But we have thus far no entirely satisfactory analogies for
such a name.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 173

(Muss-Arnolt, p. 1042), etc. The original "I Esdras" translit
eration was Bto-Xe/xo? or B?7<7Xe/-io?, and the cr was accidentally
dropped by a copyist. The "Bee'Xcrt^o?" of the I Esdras L text
is a flagrant instance of textual contamination, since it is merely
one of the corrupt variants of the transliteration of D2O b>'2 :
BeeXre/x-o?, -fe/-to?, -<7e/^o?; which are found here even in the appa
ratus of Niese's Josephus. As for the other two names: Pn*inE3 ,
Mithradates, is Persian, and is employed by the Chronicler also
in Ezr. 1:8; bfcOtt, Tab- el, is Aramaic, and occurs also in
Isaiah 7:6.

It may be merely accidental, but it is certainly worthy of
notice, that in each one of these enumerations by name of the
enemies of the Jews, the names are such as to point to as many
different nationalities as possible. In 5:3, etc., Tattenai
is Babylonian and Satibarzanes is Persian; in 4:8, etc., Rehum
is native Aramaic, and also Jewish (and of course the Samaritan
community was supposed to contain Hebrews and renegade Jews,
as well as foreigners), and Shimshai is Babylonian; in 4: 6 (7)
Bishlam is Babylonian, Mithradath is Persian, and Tab'el is Syrian
(representing apparently those Samaritans who were brought from
the region of Hamath). It is true, as was pointed out above, that
at the time when this was written the nationality of names counted
for much less than had formerly been the case; but on the other
hand, it cannot be doubted that the Jewish narrators of the time
did recognize the distinction between names in this regard, and
created "local color" accordingly. And it is quite certain that
"even in the Hellenistic period a native of Palestine or of any other
country inhabited by Jews might without difficulty have collected
a large number of Persian names" (Noldeke, Encyl. Bibl., article
"Esther," §3).

2. The Foreign Words

What has just been said in regard to Persian names is also true
of other Persian words. The Chronicler, or the author of Daniel,
or any other story-teller of the Greek period in Jerusalem, could
easily procure as many of these words as he wished to use. When
it is observed how much fewer in proportion these Persisms are in
the Jewish papyri of Egypt than they are in the Aramaic of Ezra
and Daniel, the C( Delusion lies near at hand that our narrators
introduced at least some of them for effect.

174 EZRA STUDIES

The nature and manner of use of one or two of the words,
moreover, point in the same direction. Such a common word as
the adverb "diligently" need not have been borrowed by the Ara
maic from any foreign source; yet we find it eight times, in
these Ezra documents, expressed by the one or the other of two
curious Persian (?) words which are otherwise unknown. It is
hard to believe that this represents the actual usage of any period
of Jewish (or any other) Aramaic. If the adverb occurred only
once or twice we might not look on it with suspicion, but this obvi
ous parading of it can hardly be accidental.

It is perhaps not surprising, on any theory, that the origin of
about one half of these foreign words should remain more or less
obscure. It is usually only the etymology which is uncertain,
however, for the meaning is made plain by the context in nearly
every case. The most of the words which can be recognized are
Persian or Babylonian ; two or three are Greek ; of the remainder,
nothing can be said with confidence at present.

7:23. An adverb, meaning "diligently, zealously," as
the context shows. It looks like a Persian word, but no
plausible explanation of it has been given thus far. It seems
to be the equivalent of &On5C8 ; see below.

5:8; 6:8, 12, 13; 7:17, 21, 26. Also an adverb, with
the same meaning as the preceding — and no other meaning
will fit all the places where it occurs. The I Esdras trans
lator renders both alike by eV^eXw?. The word is otherwise
unknown, and the attempted explanations of it are far-fetched.
We are certainly not justified in connecting it with the prob
lematic word in the Aramaic inscription, CIS, II, 108. The
reading of the word there (generally given as "p£CX) is by
no means assured; the sense of the whole inscription is
unknown; and the meaning "exact," usually postulated
there, will not do at all in the Ezra passages.

5:6; 6:6. An official title of the governors of the
Transflumen, of whom Tattenai was one. Apparently the
Aramaic plural of the naturalized Greek word eVa/o^o?, the
D and C being transposed (naturally; as in Al-iskandar for
Alexander, etc.), and the plural ending added in the usual
way. These are the "IMJ!"! ^33? FfiTi3 , "the eparchs of the
Transflumen," Ezr. 8:36; Neh. 2:7, 9, and eirapxo* is the

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS or EZRA 175

usual equivalent (cf. "die standige Bezeichnung," Meyer,
Entstehung, 32, note) of XlHS .*8 It is quite likely that the
author of these documents supposed this to be a Persian
word.

4:13. From the context, evidently a feminine noun signi
fying "revenue," as scholars have generally agreed. The
suggestion of Andreas, "damage" (!), in Marti's glossary, is
plainly impossible. Neither the old Greek translator nor
Theodotion ventured to render the word. I have no doubt
that it is ar Greek technical term ; either eVn-aft?, "taxation,"
or e7rt#eoY9, "impost," either one of which words might have
been transliterated in this way. In favor of the former
might be cited the passage Herod, iii, 89, where, in speaking
of the imposition of tribute by Darius upon the various
divisions of the Persian empire, the phrase r) eirtrafw rov
(f)opov is used. But the terms einTidevai, eV/#e<rt<?, are also
used technically in speaking of the "imposition" of tribute,
fines, and the like, and in view of the exact transliteration
of the latter word it is to be preferred. This explains the
gender of the verb pTDJiri ; the phrase "PSbE CHStf (notice
that it is not fcOb/J or fcT^b/j) means r) /3ao-i\iicrj €7ri0€<m,
"the royal taxation," and the gender of the borrowed word is
retained, as usual. Here, again, it is quite likely that the
Aramaic narrator did not know the origin of the term, but
supposed it to be Persian. It is barely possible that the
writing with 5 is due to a reminiscence of the sound of the
Greek TT. As for the vowel pointing CfiEfc$ , it is exactly
as valuable as that of C'lPlj? , for KiQapis, in Dan. 3:5, 7. 10.
nSX 5:3, 9. A good illustration of the relative excellency of
MT, inasmuch as both the old Greek translator and
Theodotion (versions nearly or quite three hundred years
apart) had the word before them in the form
the former as feOSfcjt , o-reyr), "roof," arid the latter as

outlay" (for hired labor). So long, therefore, as

*8That Tattenai is thought of hero as the satrap of the whole Transflumen, is of course
not the case. He was the u governor " of his province, just as Zerubbabel, at the same time,
was governor (riFIS . 6:7) in Judea, as Sheshbazzar had been previously (5:14), and as
Bagohi is said in the Sachau papyri to have been the Tin*1 PHD i" the years 411-408. The
narrator uses the term 5^03^2^, ewap\oi, herein the same way that his immediate suc
cessor, the Chronicler, uses the equivalent terms in his "Ezra Memoirs," 8:36, where Ezra,
after arriving in Jerusalem, hands over the decrees of the king *]bl3n

nnsn in? n*nnsv

176 EZRA STUDIES

the word given in MT remained otherwise unattested, the
only safe critical procedure was to adopt the reading fc<"^ .
But now the word &C"I1ZJ^ has again come to light in the
papyri published by Sachau, the reading being quite certain.
In the Egyptian document (I)rei aram. Pcupyrusurkunden,
I, 11) it signifies a part (just which part, is not clear) of
the temple at Elephantine; in the Ezra passages, also, it has
always been evident that it stands for a part of the temple at
Jerusalem. I believe that the word means "colonnade;"
that it is the same as the "jT£ -of the Bod-'astart inscription,
CIS, I, 4, 1. 4; and that it is probably to be connected with
the Assyrian word surinnu™ The prosthetic 8, in that
case, would be merely euphonic. In the description of the
destruction of the Jewish temple in Egypt, first the inner
sanctuary is mentioned, with its pillars; then the gates, with
' their doors; then the roofing, made of beams of cedar; then
"the rest of50 the portico," tfj^lTtf rVTE , "and whatever
else was there." The phrase "and the columns which were
there," used in speaking of the sanctuary proper, may
perhaps be taken to imply that there were other columns
elsewhere, namely in the outer court. As for the context in
Ezra, it is at least natural to suppose that there an important
and conspicuous part of the whole structure is meant. Point
perhaps W?lE&j» ? I am of course fully aware of the precarious
character of these conclusions.

ibl Only in the standing phrase ~bm 1^2 H"I"^ , 4:13, 20;
7:24. 'ibn is not to be separated from the Babylonian abdlu,
the noun biltu, etc., though the precise nature of the form is
is still uncertain. n^D'J is also a Babylonian loan-word,
mandaitu, as is well known. Also in the form fTTQ, 6:8;
Neh. 5:4. ^bn , judging from its etymology, means custom,
"gang und gebe," binding usage (as regards tribute); cf.
5~l!Db»~I , and the English word "custom" meaning tax. It is
not likely that it has anything to do with roads, as some
have supposed. Probably not a loan-word from the Baby
lonian, though the latter appears to have some closely ana
logous usage, cf. especially the various uses of ilku.

« I have previously suggested the connection of the Phoenician word with the Assyrian ;
Journal of the Am. Or. Society, Vol. XXIII, 1902, pp. 171 f.

M>So read and interpreted by Fraenkel, Theol. Litz., 23 Nov., 1907, and NOldeke, ZA,
XXI, 199, while Sachau reads

THE AKAMAIC POKTIONS or EZBA 177

^27 j 7:21. The Persian word "treasurer;" possibly borrowed

through the Babylonian, where it also appears.51
m 7:12, 14, 21, 25, 26. The Persian word "law." Also used

in the Aramaic of Daniel.

"jbn Possibly borrowed ? See the note on 123 .
Fn"2 See the note on ibn .
•prr£3 4:18, 23; 5:5. Also, in Hebrew, 4:7; 7:11. A noun

meaning "letter;" origin not yet satisfactorily explained.

The resemblance to old Persian nipistam, modern Persian

oJ^«J , "writing," is too close to be accidental. Possibly

-v-
the result of writing down an unfamiliar word from hearsay ?

•jjllTS 4:11, 23; 5:6. Also, in Hebrew, 7:11 and (in the form
•pirns) Esther 3:14; 4:8; 8:13. Apparently a genuine
Persian loan-word, "copy;" but the origin of the form, and
the relation to that found in Esther, are not yet clear.

Djn2 4:17; 5:7, 11; 6:11. Also Dan. 3:16; 4:14, and (Hebrew)
Esth. 1:20; Eccles. 8:11; very common in later Aramaic
and classical Syriac. It is an exact synonym of *Q"1 , i. e.
"word" which is occasionally weakened to "thing." It
does not mean "answer," nor "decree," nor "message," as is
often affirmed; and it thus stands at some distance, both in
meaning and in form, from the modern Persian paighdm,
"message" (the "old Persian patighdma," from patigam,
"arrive," has not actually been found). The hypothesis of
a Greek loan-word, namely <$>6e«/na, "word, utterance," is
more probable on all grounds. The Greek translators render
D3D3 regularly by prjua and Xctyo?; the word in its Syriac
form is also used ordinarily to translate XO'YO?, /^/-ta, eVo?,
$#0770?, $#07777, <J)6ey/jia (Syr.-Hex. in Job 6 : 26, Wisd. 1:11).

Of the words discussed in the preceding list, at least four are
Persian; three (possibly four) are Babylonian; three are Greek;
two are altogether unknown, but seem more likely to be Persian
(if they are genuine words) than anything else. Counting all
their occurrences, they appear in these few chapters more than
forty times, a very noteworthy fact. Such well-known and
understood loan-words as »"n3fc$ , 5STD3 , blj"1!"! , !"jns , which have
been truly adopted by the Aramaic, are left out of consideration.

51 As ganzabaru; Peiser, in ZATW (1897), p. 347. The massoretic pointing is therefore
of doubtful value ; see the note on the verse, below ; also Andreas, in Marti's glossary.

178 EZRA STUDIES

V. THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF 4:6-11

The restoration of vss. 6-11 which is given here is substan
tially the same as that which I made in 1895, and printed in my
Composition of Ezra, p. 6. The principal difference is in the
treatment of vs. 8, which I formerly regarded as made up of
two parts, namely, (1) the proper names which had been
pushed out of vs. 7, and (2) a clause which had originally stood
at the end of vs. 10, but was now transposed by the copyist in order
to repair the damage which he had done. On further considera
tion, it has seemed to me that the true explanation is simpler than
this, and that vs. 8, in exactly its present wording, originally
formed the beginning of the document incorporated by the Chron
icler. The conclusion follows of necessity, that the vss. 9-10
are an interpolation; for it is quite obvious that the man who
wrote vs. 8 cannot have written the first words of vs. 9 as its con
tinuation. The incorporated narrative, moreover, is not very
likely to have begun with the word 'j'HfcS ; but "this would have
been a natural way of beginning the interpolation, which is,
indeed, made in the easiest possible manner. I have always be
lieved the list of names in vs. 9 (see below) to be secondary,
and it was for the sake of these, and their fling at the Samaritans,
that the interpolation was made. The first clause of vs. 10 is the
counterpart of vs. 2/3, above, and the remainder is derived from
vs. 17. The first clause of vs. 11 might belong either to the in
terpolation or to the original document ; but it is plainly better to
regard it in the former way. •

This restoration involves no change in the text beyond the
returning of "Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabel and his companions"
to vs. 6, and the filling of the gap thus made in vs. 7 with the
names "Rehum the .reporter and Shimshai the scribe." By my
former restoration, vss. 9-11 were made to read more smoothly;
but an interpolated text is not expected to be smooth. The
suspended construction in vss. 9-11, "p"Itf having no direct con
nection with any verb, is in no way remarkable.

The variation in the tradition of these verses afforded by the
I Esdras fragment is both interesting and important. The Greek
text52 reads: °'Ez> Be rot? evrt 'Apra^ep^ov rov Hepawv ftao-iXews
v aura)53 Kara rwv /CCLTOLKOVVTCIOV ev rfj 'lovBalq tcai

52 1 have emended the Greek only at those points where the evidence seems conclusive.

53 The Hexaplar text (inferior, as usual in the Ezra books) has avriav. So B, Syr.,Eth.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 179

BiVXe/io?54 real M.i6piSaTq$ ical Ta/3e'AAto? /cal
/cal BeeXre/Lto?56 /cal 2a/-i<jato?°7 6 ypa/jL/Aarevs /cal ol \oi7rol ol TOVTOLS
i, olicovvTes Be ev ^a^apeia real rot? aXXot? roTrot?, rrjv

eVtcrroX/j^' 16Ba<7i\eZ 'Apra^e'p^rj Kvpicp ol
aov PaoOfto? 6 [ypd<f>a)v] 5S ra Trpoo-TTLTrrovra /cal Sa/icrato? 6

/cal ol eViXotTTOt TT)? /3oiA,r?9 avrwv /cpiral™ ol ev /coiXy

iq /cal QoivL/crj. ll ical vvv yvcoarbv ecnr&> AC. r. e. The omissions
here are very surprising, and almost equally so are the confla
tions or transpositions. But the phenomena are all capable of
explanation.

The portions of the Hebrew- Aramaic text of the passage which
are represented in this Greek are the following: (1) Verse 6,
or at all events £6, exactly reproduced.60 In the beginning of the
verse the name KfYlZJt2JM)rHX was probably substituted at an early
date for lDl"!YJDn&, arid in that case an abridged combination
with vs. 7 would have been the natural result. It is perhaps use
less to try to determine whether the omission of the half -verse was
by accident or by design, and whether made first in the Greek or
in the Hebrew;, but in my own opinion it- is extremely probable
that the Hebrew text had been slightly edited here; see further
below. (2) Verse 7 a, every word of which is rendered, while
considerable additions to it have also been made. These additions
will be considered presently. The last clause of the verse, telling
how the letter was "written in Aramaic and translated" (into
Hebrew), is not rendered at all. This makes it certain that
vs. 76 was not in the Hebrew text which lay before the translator.
It is not the custom of this version to make omissions ; the clause
in question is interesting and important, and makes no difficulty ;
it could easily have been incorporated here. (3) The last word
*5) in verse 8, represented by the adjective i

M Perhaps originally BtVAa/no?, as a and e interchange with great freedom in the tran
scripts. For the rest, see above, on the proper names. Of course rj and t were interchange
able at the volition of any scribe. It is not likely that the translator himself wrote T? here.

5&See above, on the proper names.

5tiThe reading attested also by Josephus, B«eA£e>c<>.

57 The form written by the translator. See above, on the proper names.

58 The word ypd^uv, of course, stood here in the original translation, cf. vs. 21. In the
I Esdras fragment it had been loet through careless transcription; Josephus had it in the
text before him. The L text is arbitrarily emended, as usual.

59 A has Kparaioi (the last syllable derived from the following oi) ; B and Eth. omit the
word, though Syr. has it. The Egyptian recension prefixes *ai, which Jos. and the Syrian
text (Latin, L) rightly omit.

6°The word n3I3l2? is rendered by eTuoroArji/, as also in Theodotion's translation.

180 EZRA STUDIES

Of the rest of the verse there is no trace apparent. It was from
another source that the added names in vs. 7 were derived, as will
be shown. When it is further observed, that the last words in vs.
la are D^S "jb/J »ntoTSnrn» b?, while those at the end of the
omitted part of vs. 8, standing in a precisely similar context, are
&Cb7J tfruronmtfb, it is plain that the whole passage, vss. 76, 8,
had been accidentally lost from the "I Esdras" Hebrew through
the easy mistake of a copyist. (4) Verse 11, from b^ (the be
ginning of the letter) onward. That is, the very passage, vss. 9,
10, Ha a, which I have already shown to be an interpolation in
the Hebrew- Aramaic text is wanting here. From vs. lla/3 onward
the text is like that of the canonical recension, except that in place
of the single word TZJjJS in vs. 116 the Greek has PaoO/uo? 6 ypdcfrcov
ra Trpoo-TriTTTOvra Kal Sa/ucrato? 6 ypa/JLfJLaTevs Kal ol €7rt\onroi TT)?
the /3ouX^? avrwv Kpirai, an expansion which, like the similar
one intranslation of vs. 7, evidently was made in order to restore
the two (or three) names which had been accidentally lost from
the text.

What, then, is the history of these expansions, in the transla
tion of vss. 7 and 11 ? As for the latter verse, it can hardly be
doubted, first of all, that the original reading was the single
word TUDX , as in our massoretic text. Now the words inserted
in place of this in the Greek I Esdras are almost an exact render
ing of a part of vs. 9, from Dim to fcTD"H ; .the conclusion
might therefore seem necessary, that the translator had vss. 9
and 10 before him, but omitted all but these few words which he
transposed into the latter part of vs. 11. But several considera
tions flatly forbid this hypothesis. In the first place, it is
incredible that this translator (whose habits we know well) should
omit all this important material, if he had it before him. No
difficulty of the passage would have led him to discard it, of
this we can be certain. As I have already observed (pp. 83 f.,
see also below) , he is sure to stick closely to a difficult or cor
rupt text. Again, and more important still, the word fcTn in its
context in vss. 9 f., does not mean, and could not mean, Kpirai.
The juxtaposition with the other gentilic names, and the express
statement in vs. 10 that these names, &T7jb2 .... fcWT, are
the names of "peoples," leave no room for doubt; and no trans
lator could ever have thought of cutting off the first name in the
list and, rendering it "judges." The true state of the case, then,

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 181

is this: vs. 9 of our canonical text was derived from the
I Esdras expansion in vs. 11 (see further below), not vice
versa. The reason why the addition to vs. 11 was made is so
obvious as to need no argument. In the accidentally abridged
text of this recension there was here no mention of "Rehum
the reporter and Shimshai the scribe," that is, of the two officials
who according to vss. 17 and 23 sent the letter, received answer
to it, and took action accordingly! It was absolutely necessary,
in any recension, Aramaic or Greek, that their names should
appear in the introduction of the letter. The insertion had been
made in the Aramaic text which our translator followed, as
the KpiTai shows beyond all question. The term fc^j"1" , as a
general designation for these less usual officials, was probably the
best that the editor could have chosen.61

But the history of the other expansion of the I Esdras text,
the one in vs. 15 ( = vs. 7 of the Hebrew) , is essentially different.
The reason for making the insertion here was the same, it is true;
but in this case we have to do with the expansion of the Greek
translation, not of the Semitic original. This is proved by the
presence of the gloss BeeXre/uo?, which appears also in vs. 21
( =vs. 17 of the Aramaic text), the source from which the whole
addition was derived. Vs. 15 ( =vs. 7 of the Hebrew) was very
troublesome in its abridged state, for it declared that "Bishlam,
Mithredath, and Tabel" were the authors of "the following
letter," Triv vTroyejpa/jL^evjjv eTnaroXriv. A translator might well
allow this to pass (especially since the difficulty had been lessened
by the interpolation made in the Aramaic of vs. 11), and it was
in fact left untouched by our translator ; but the contradiction was
still so great that it could not long be permitted to stand." • Hence
the clause, PaoOfto? real BeeXre/xo? ical Sa/xtrato? 6 7 pa /i/Ltareu? /cal
ol \oi7rol ol rouroi? GvvTCLGGQ^evQi, oiKOvvT€S be ev ^a/Adpeia /cal rot?
a'AAot? ToVot?, was taken over bodily from vs. 21 and inserted in
vs. 15 after the other names. As for the BeeXre/to?, it certainly
did not stand in the original rendering. The translator who knew
that D3?ti b>"3 meant "reporter,"'1 o ypdtfxov ra Trpoo-TriTrrovra,
would not also have treated it as a proper name, and his rendering
in vs. 16 shows that he did not so treat it. The gloss was made

61 As a mere coincidence with the phrase fcOS'H 'priD'EDl inEzr. 4:11 ("I Esdras"
version) the occurre^re of the phrase X^T nmSDI > "and his colleagues the judges," in
Cowley's papyrus B, 1. 6, is interesting.

62 See the note on the translation of 4:7 (8).

182 EZRA STUDIES

by some later hand in vs. 21, and was transferred thence to vs. 15
with the rest of the passage.

The Hebrew- Aramaic63 text of this passage, Ezr-. 4:6-12, in
the I Esdras recension therefore read as follows:

rrrna nb'jh vb? nre c^s "iba attYiDicnrm rD'ai '• 7- 8

T ' T T ~ T ~ T

by11 o64x/,2"D Dbtfvri rnVT ^iizr b? riDBTB rni:D "IKTZ31

T*" T * I T T T

-iKizh anso ••BE'iDi D?B bra Dim T-Q? iato

T T T

."rai xinb rT (12) : nEi 12 o "mna

This text differs from the massoretic in the following particulars:
(1) Vss. 6 and 7 have been editorially combined, as already
stated; (2) Vss. 76 and 8 (except the last word) have been lost
by the accident of transcription mentioned above; (3) Vss. 9, 10,
ll«a, interpolated by a later hand in our massoretic text, are
wanting here; (4) The editor has made the (absolutely necessary)
insertion in vs. 11 very skilfully.

The Greek translator reproduced his original verbatim, as
usual ; and his rendering here has come down to us intact except
ing one particular, namely, that at a later day some one found it
necessary to harmonize vs. 15 ( = vss. 6, 7) with its context by
inserting in it a paraphrase — almost word for word — of the
greater part of vs. 21.

Finally, as to the verses, 9, 10, Ha a, which have been interpo
lated in our massoretic text. They were written by some one who
had before him both recensions of the Hebrew- Aramaic (namely,
the original form and the I Esdras form), and whose purpose was
to deal the Samaritans a more telling blow. The interpolator saw
the opportunity of showing still farther, in the introduction to this
official document, what a mixed rabble the Samaritans really were,
by naming some of the regions from which Shalmanassar67 had
brought them. That his knowledge of geography and history was

63 The material out of which the introductory verse was made was undoubtedly left just
as it was : all Hebrew with the exception of the last word, jtf'QSD .

64 This word certainly stood in the text. When the copyist's eye strayed from the king's
name in vs. 7 to the same name in vs. 8, it caught this preparatory word also.

65 The same form which occurs (correctly) in both Vss. 17 and 23. The translator, who
had just rendered the phrase in the preceding sentence, now varies the rendering on literary
grounds, as he frequently does elsewhere.

66 The QblD was missing here, as well as in the canonical version.

67 See above, on the proper name

THE AKAMAIC PORTIONS or EZRA 183

hot very extensive is at least suggested by the last four names in the
list, ."Persians, people of Erech, Babylonians, people of Susa (who
are Elamites)."" As for. the fc<*bE"it2 , they are presumably "people
of Tetrapolis," as has already been shown. But it is most impor
tant of all to observe that the two first names in the list, namely
fcTri and S^(fl)v"i3X, are the words used in the documents
themselves (as they lay before the interpolator) to designate
these enemies of the Jews; namely in 4:11 (I Esdras original) ;
5:6; 6:6. Whether the interpolator recognized them as official
titles or not, it is at all events certain that he proceeded to use
them as gentilic names, thus completing his curious list. -More
over, by the continuation in vs. 10, "and the rest of the peoples,"
etc., he leaves abundant room for still other heathen ancestors of
the rival community.

The way in which the interpolation was made is as simple as
possible. The text used as the basis was of course the more com
plete and (obviously) more correct one. For the beginning of
the insertion, the secondary clause in the I Esdras text
of vs. 11 (see above) was adopted verbatim, and the description
of these "associates" was" then continued in the manner just
described. The whole was introduced by the word . "plX ; it is
hard to imagine any other way in which the "interpolation could
have been effected so easily.

VI. THE TEXT OF THE PASSAGES

Our massoretic text of these Aramaic passages in Ezra is very
well preserved, in the main. It has retained some old forms
and readings which had disappeared both from Theodotion's text
and from the original of the "I Esdras" recension. Even the
vowel-pointing is usually (but of course not always) trustworthy,
in these Aramaic passages. For the interpretation of the text,
the old Greek translation, of which we now have only the frag
ments preserved in I Esdras, is very valuable because of its great
age. It was made about three centuries earlier than that of
Theodotion (our "canonical" 'version), at a time when many
words and matters were still familiar which soon after ceased to
be understood.

On the system of punctuation adopted for the text here printed,
see above, pp. 118 f.

184 EZRA STUDIES

SAMARITAN INTRIGUES AGAINST THE BUILDING OF THE

TEMPLE

(Ezr. 4:4— 6:19)

Til 4*

(Hebrew) . . ~L . " , ' . . .

* ^5 < Dnsi? ^3»~J2 D^jWr on x3? d^"ODV ©^IYM^

T T " T

The manner in which this phrase is frequently replaced by
T£J , in the Chronicler's narrative (see my Composition,
p. 18), may show us his idea of the population of Palestine in
that day. The returning Jewish exiles had as their neighbors
(aside from Phoenicians, Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, etc.)
merely the motley throng of heathen "peoples of the lands" brought
in by the Assyrians. When he uses the term he has the Sama
ritans in mind.

b As Bertholet and others have remarked, these "counselors"
are thought of as at the Persian court. I believe that the Chron
icler had in mind some of the ministers of the king, using
the term D^2WT exactly as he does in I Chron. 21 : 33, Ezr. 7 : 14,
15 (Aramaic), 28; 8:25.

cThe purpose of the Chronicler to make his history con
tinuous, in this verse and those which follow, is quite unmistak
able — and he would have damaged his own work seriously, at this
point, if he had not done so! During the reign of Cyrus, high
Persian officials, bribed for the purpose, managed to stop the
building of the temple. Then followed, immediately, the reign of
Xerxes, at the very "beginning" of which Bishlam and his asso
ciates wrote their effective accusation.

d This clause is one of the remaining traces of the redactional
process through which our book of Ezra has passed. When the
Story of the Three Youths was interpolated and the letters 4: 6-
24 (n. b.) were transposed, the interpolator who made the new
edition left the two (now consecutive) verses 4:5 and 5:1 exactly
as they were. But the necessity of putting some bridge across this
gap was imperative, and our two surviving texts contain each a
clause written for this purpose; namely, the one before us, and
the words "and they were hindered from building until the second
year of the reign of Darius" (incorrectly rendered by the Greek
translator) in I Esdras 5:70 (73). When the makers of our
canonical edition cut out the Story and restored the letters to their
original place, they of course left 4 : 5 in its expanded form.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS or EZRA 185

s nbizh6 SQPO ."irvtobE nbnra ^iri^zins
oDbiDTTi rmrr •ara-1 b? n:ato 'vrto

T ' • T T

isbn ^Tztozh hD? bsa DTD are

br sin *O3S tons *osc "ICEEI DSB bsa wnv Aramai

T T • T T ..... Writer

aini

eSee above, on the proper names.

f A genuine Aramaic word, not a loan-word.

g On the orthography of this name see above, the proper names.

h I have pointed this in the Hebrew manner, since it now stands
in a Hebrew verse, as it originally stood. But it may well be that
these Aramaic titles, D2t2 b52 and fcPSC were retained by the

T T J

Chronicler in their official Aramaic form.

1 See above, on the proper names. k See note h.

1 The word fT/J^K , which stands here in MT, is a later addi
tion intended to give warning (as in Dan. 2:4) that the following
passage is Aramaic.

mThe Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon says, "derivation uncer
tain." But where is the possibility of any uncertainty, in view of
fcae,^ , Q"P, D*)bD , D3?TO , etc., the Assyrian enclitic -ma, and
other similar formations? I would add to the list of these ma-
forms >cii^ , "person" or "face" (Guidi, I sette dormienti, p. 19,
1. 1) = \_el^/ca)v -\-rna. I believe that we have the original 'fa>»,
fully naturalized, in the Esmun'azar inscription, 11. 4, 20, *,p
PK ^"2 , "whosoever thou art;" cf. the Tabnit inscription, 1. 3, and
the two Nerab inscriptions, I, 1. 5 and II, 1. 8.

n On the peculiar history of this word and the one which fol
lows it, see above, pp. 180 f., 183.

°The K which stands at the beginning of this word in MT is
the result of a copyist's mistake; see above, p. 170.

p Probably fcTDlK , as suggested above ?

q MT fcOni . This, explanatory clause is not necessarily the
work of a later hand; the original narrator himself occasionally
wishes to explain a word or a phrase. Cf. Wright's Joshua the
^ 9, 16, which is an exact parallel.

r MT ^SDCIS ; see above, on the proper names.

186 EZRA STUDIES

^ srnax "pths nn11 etrnna "iir ixth vrvat? ^ srrnpn iian arnm

m T

c hi a

s Should this be pronounced FT^p ? It is at all events plural,
i. e., the collective noun regularly used in Syriac, |JUa-o . It
cannot possibly be the undetermined singular here (as in vs.
15, fc^lp) , and the determined singular, MT*ip , occurs seven
times over in this chapter. "TT;21ZJ here is the province of Sama
ria; moreover, this whole phrase is a direct quotation of the twic£
occurring phrase "fflElC "l"1>"2 [D]2iziis5> in ^ne all-important
"Samaritan passage" II Kings 17:24, 26. Observe that even
Theodotion and Jerome render by the plural: eV 7ro\ecnv TT)?
So/u-opaw, in civitatibus Samariae.

1 MT adds Pij^SI , evidently derived by a copyist's mistake from
the following verse.

u Since the DbllJ is missing in both MT and I Esdras, I have
not ventured to insert it, though it seems to me most likely that it
was in the original text. It is probably merely an accidental
coincidence that the same word has disappeared from 7: 12, where
it certainly once stood.

v My explanation of this word as the equivalent of Joo Lc! ,
Journ. Bib. Lit., 1897, pp. 166 ff., has been proved correct by the
Egyptian papyri. In the letter published by Sachau, Drei aram.
Papyrusurkunden, I, 4, II, 2, the word occurs in exactly this
usage, while the full form STO'D is found in the papyri published
by Cowley.

wln the Egyptian papyri, this form is written everywhere HIIT ,
not as in Ezra and Daniel.

x This seems the most probable way of connecting this word,
especially in view of the absence of any demonstrative pronoun
after it.

yMT has ibbS'JTK ^TiTl, and would transpose the K to the pre
ceding word, leaving the verb in the perfect tense. It is plain
from vs. 13, however, that the perfect cannot have been intended.
I believe that this is one of the many cases in which initial "* and
& interchange phonetically, and that the form is really imperf.
third person plural. Cf. Dalman, Gramm*, p. 252, and the well-

THE ARAMAIC -PoKTioNS OF EZRA 187

awnnn T tfmp in *n «-»sbab a

•••IT

tajbm ibn
rfea -n bnp

known state of. the case in classical Syriac. This imperfect, like
the one which follows it, doubtless ended in u.

2 The word should be written sitSlT ( = *!t3rp), without the m>.
It is a hapJiel imperfect from the root 1313)1, corresponding to the
Arabic JQ.^ (not Jo=*), and with exactly the same meaning, "lay."
The I Esdras translation, vTroftaXXovrai, is not a bad rendering.
Theirs/ stem of the Arabic verb is used both transitively ("lay")
and intransitively ("come down"). The fourth stem also is used
with the meaning "put down, lay," just as the corresponding form,
the haph*el, is used here in Aramaic. The verb is common in
Arabic, but has not thus far been found elsewhere in the cognate
languages.

aOn these three words see above, the section dealing with the
foreign words.

bThe Greek eiriOeiris; see above, on the foreign words. MT

GThe final D in MT is probably a mere copyist's error for ".
We have no other evidence of an Aramaic plur. in -im. This is
not a Hebraism.

dThis haph*el has two uses: the one causative, as in vss. 15,
22; the other signifying to come into the condition (viz., of
deterioration), as this stem is so frequently used in Semitic. Cf.
the two uses of nb^n, Dan. 3:30 and 6:29. The fern, form here
because of the (Greek) fern, noun; see above.

elt is often said (e. g., by Marti, Gramm., p. 98; Strack,
Gramm., p. 56; Brown-Driver-Briggs, Lexicon) that this is
wrongly divided and pointed, and that the form should be b^pbp •
But this is not true ; the massoretes have divided and pointed cor
rectly. The shifting of the vowel is very natural, and has many
analogies; and as for the division, it is not a whit more remark
able than in b'JJ , Eccles. 8:17, cf. Jonah 1:7, 8; or b"H (as
a separate word) in the Palmyrene inscriptions; or than in

e=L-co! JJo, for y\ yjg (Noldeke, Delectus vet. carm. araft., 10, 4;
^ ^**s

Goldziher, Ab^andl. zur arab. Philol., II, p. xiv). These are
local and temporary habits of orthography.

188 EZRA STUDIES

•n15 0<aobEb f*o'Tirn wnbizs rm b? ^ir^ *ob -J^K

pb? npT2ri/Ji X-TO s^p -p Mv
n -n amp nn b? j^ab? rvat1 TQ wan

T T

xb x^r»3 nn:n pbn n^ bnpb .^bbs

o n'j «

^ n^jv p "p tfrrnp ^ ^nD'ni siipai «D?ti

1^*1 .n^n/j -p^b/j b:?
uii .Dbir^iT b>3? ^

0-pnb ^D^n

npT:nb u<ban KM*1 n/jb ;H

'-T T - • T

fThe epistolary perfect; "we hereby send and make known."

gMT np2^ , but this is shown to be wrong by the suffix at the
end of the clause. The form adopted (which might be either
indicative or jussive) is better than "fPpa"1 .

h"pS"I ^5C, "record-book," cf. Mai. 3:16, is virtually a com
pound word (Marti, Gf-ramm., §117; Kautzsch, Hebr. Gramm.,
§124, 2), and this is its plural, "record-books." So the old
Greek translator and Jerome, rightly. Other plur. compounds of
this same sort in 5:17; 6:1.

'Apparently an example of initial !$ replacing the more original
H . See above, on the language of these documents.

k Probably a naturalization of the Greek (frOey/jia', see above.

]The suffix by no means to be altered to the second person;
see the note on 6:6.

mNot the city, but the province.

"This same form, and similarly used, in the letter published by
Sachau, Drei aram. Papyrusurkunden, II, 1. 2; cf. I, 1. 4.

0 Circumstantial accusative of the passive participle.

PCf. the Arabic idiom, Wright, Gramm., II, 27 B, 304 C.

qSee above, on the Aramaic of these documents.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS or EZRA 189

"i tfnbtf rra rrra? nbtta rn&u24 ob-m sn-i&c ten ibtsai

T T V

T T

p rnsa2 ©rrrbs birtr nbtf ora'a <DbtDTrai -nrra -n

IT " T

nbN rva awarb uvnTzh ^P"^v ^n rvji
© "inb -rcE «nb^ ^i K-a

n:i xn^a tO^a Dbb Dir "9 :xnhb -paa -p1! t-pnnj:
^3» ;•- :Dn^ a?b^ r.»* ©nbbbTsb nsi z

-IT T T

11 ^air b^ nin Dhnba rn5 orsa «r:a nn *i

•• T ~ T T

rThe manner of the connection here is strong added evidence
that 4:24 was wo£ written by the Chronicler, but by the author of
4:23 and 5:1 ff. ; see above.

S8o written (kefib) both here and 6:14, but probably already
pronounced Kna2 .

'The superiority of this reading would be obvious enough even
if we did not have Theodotion's irpofaretav, showing that the
word actually stood in his text. Cf. also 6:14.

"This, of course, does not imply that no building had been
done before! This is the characteristic redundant use of the
Aramaic verb "begin;" see above, p. 51, note d.

vThe Babylonian name Tattannu, see above.

WMT very likely corrupt; see above, on the proper names.

xThis, like most of the other so-called "Hebraisms" in Ezra
and Daniel, is pure Aramaic. On the whole question see now
Herbert H. Powell, The Supposed Hebraisms in .... Biblical
Aramaic, Berkeley, Gal., 1907.

y Inasmuch as this same form occurs twice in the Hadad in
scription, 11. 13, 14, it is, of course, to be retained. The pointing
of the massoretes is probably correct. Apparently a variation of
fcOa^b , with compensatory doubling of the a .

zSee above, on the foreign words. Both the old Greek transla
tor and Theodotion had &O3JS before them here. Point possibly

aMT has for these two words SLTJtf XE3D fltf . The second
and third of these were derived by a copyist's mistake from the
similar passage in vs. 9; it was then necessary to change the £jfc*
to "TIlS . With the restored text cf. the beginning of vs. 10.

190 EZRA STUDIES

c^ iziVTib bK/j?p IT <ittn ibtta »bi

nrrpi <vnb? inbizi
bti «tobs lormb
n^nb xnrTj fisin"b
nbarai t^ia^na ^WHECK IT snTnri ;»"bren Diz:n:j

Dbb Dto h^

wiSV° onbbD'j:b nan k»na»i 'm

T ' T

nnb

b"News," as in the title D>'tt ^l.

c So also in the Egyptian papyri, the forms ^{"18 and
(Cowley, op. czY.).

dThe singular suffix, as in 4:6 (7) ; a merely literary variation
from the more frequent plural. The suffix refers to the nearer
one of the two names.

e Aramaic adaptation of the Greek eVa/0%0?; see above. MT
&rSD"l22$ . Perhaps the 5 and 0 were actually transposed in the
Jewish pronunciation of the word.

fThis word, "Judea," occurs in the letter from the Jews of
Elephantine, 408 B. c., published by Sachau, I, 1.

g A word of unknown origin ; see above.

h It is safest to retain this Jewish pointing, "J instead of "J ,
until we know more about it.

'This form should not be "emended" away, especially since
precisely similar forms are found in the Palestinian Talmud and
the Jerusalem Targums (Dalman, Gramm.*, 340, 349). So also
in biblical Hebrew, and especially when b is joined to the infin
itive, Gesen.-Kautzsch, §45, d, e. In Ezr. 7:9, indeed, we seem
to have an Aramaizing infin. of just this sort, ffo/J (Gesen.-
Kautzsch, I. c.). These isolated occurrences are too valuable to
be thrown away.

k See the note on this word in vs. 3.

'This is correct as it stands.

THE AKAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 191

pm Kin ^1 arm -pain ;&c?n»i unm fia -H vrna? an
vra 21 baourb -bai Hrefo DE nai

T3 Tjn nn^ <&rarc nb^b acnraK toin "i TO °'(nb12

T T T - " " T

rnscn rnn n:i nrrni <*ric:

D^n "J pssn 1^315123 -i .KBC^I nann
TiiniD vjn pssn <b:n ^ ^brnb vin b^n
to nns ^

m There is no Hebraism here. As for the "un-Aramaic" pro
nunciation with "1 instead of "1 , is not this what we see preserved
in the modern name of the important town Raseya, Xft'JD8"i , at
the northern foot of Hermon ? (We seem to have similar survivals
of this Aram. plur. ending in the names of the towns Hcisbeya,
fcOniZJ!"! , west of Hernion, and Ddreyd, K"m , just south of Da
mascus. I do not know that this explanation of them has ever
been given before. )

nThis same form (without K) in a papyrus record from Ele
phantine; Sachau, op. tit., p. 41. The thoroughgoing Hebraism
Ti2tfb occurs some fifteen times in the papyri published by Sayce
and Cowley.

0 This also, similarly used, in the Egyptian papyri.

pThe incorrect form of the name generally used by the Jews
in the Greek period. Also vs. 14 and 6:5.
q Babylonia, not Babylon.
r See above, on vs. 3.
s See above, on the proper names.

1 The comments which have been made in recent years on the
text of this last clause are curious. As though FIp'iS "tsl'tS'vS ,
"Sheshbazzar by name," were not faultless Aramaic! Marti,
in the note appended to his text, suggests that n"-123 may be a
gloss (!!). Guthe, Polychrome Bible, decides that the word is
the result of dittography (!) of the n"-1E at the end of the verse;
so also BerthoL t, Comm. And so on.

u Not a Hebraism, as has long been known from the old Ara-

192 EZEA STUDIES

w*nsa nrr ^nsa TI "IMETD r^16 ovrmj* by awnrr ^nba

T ' "* **

0xnb-j: «bi ttna " "in a "i sobttira "n anba rva -n'

2 sinpni «D5ti Dir ^jb-2 TZJV^I "fi«3 61
arninap rerncni 2 o bnzn n^n ynnn'2
© :^:a HTO -^ <rnn

(3J

rnm rnm -n

• ] T

M"i* ot'n-i "^K n^ns <mr\w

male inscriptions. In Jewish Aramaic also in Jer. 10: 11 and often
in the Assuan papyri.

vThis same phrase used in speaking of the Egyptian temple;
Sachau, op. cit., p. 41.

w Meyer, Entstehung, p. 44, thinks that the meaning of HIT
^TZ3» is "problematisch"!

xNot passive, but the perf. peal of the stative verb.

y Plural, "stole-houses;" see the note on 4: 15.

z The emendation, and the reason for the loss of the words from
the text, are alike obvious.

aHere again, b2H is the country, "Babylonia."

bThe transposition is necessary, not merely for the sake of
agreement with 5:17 (as emended), but in order to make sense.

c Marti, Gramm., p. 45*: "»nrTO "TCn "H fehlt in LXX."
What does he mean by this?

d"pDT (the older form) similarly used in the Elephantine
papyrus; Sachau, pp. 40 f.

e MT TlTSNl . But many scholars since Ball ( Variorum Apo
crypha, 1892, p. 16) have seen that the word for "fire-offering"
originally stood here, as also I Esdras translates. The form
adopted (emphat. plur. written with H) is the most likely one.

f This is not a poal, but a regularly formed saptiel from the
root bul , Heb. b^"1 , Assyr. abalu, "bring." Of. the use of the
hip'till b*2Vl, in speaking of bringing offerings to Yahwe;
Ps. 68:30; 76:12; Zeph. 3:10.

gMT mn "new."

THE AKAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 193

D -n <»sc?i rnrn -H
•n abrnb h~rn j-aTirr <bnnb birrn ob-in-a -n xbrn

-a? nns ^nn -
rra rvrnyb ipa-i7 ©ran -;E tin ypTn <nviD

nns -11

hThe constructio ad sensum, "and let f/ (all) conie." Of. the
similar change of number in vs. 9, and the change of gender at
the end of 5: 8.

1 MT nnm , but the second person is out of the question here.
Read the hoph*al imperf. masc. (cf. Dan. 5:20), which is gra
phically almost the exact equivalent of the form in MT.

k On the lacuna here, see above, p. 159. It is plain that at a
very early date a passage of some length was accidentally dropped;
probably because it resembled the preceding, and ended with the

words xnbtf rvn.

1 It is common to "emend" this suffix to that of the second
person, but no such alteration is required. When the persons
directly addressed are not actually present, the Semitic often
refers to them at the outset, in the formal address itself, with the
third person, as here and in 4: 17. Thus, for example, the D3D

~~. w &

in Micah 1:2; the Lxx>| .jjJJ! Lg->! L> etc. of the Koran ; and
many other instances.

m See the note on 5 : 6.

n The text of this verse is probably correct as it stands in MT,
though the clauses are wrongly divided there. In this word "Qirb^l ,
the b is used exactly as it is in b^b^l , 7:28; i. e., in order to
show how the construction is continued. In this instance, it
shows that the noun is the direct object of the preceding verb,
not the subject of the following verb, as it would otherwise pretty
certainly be regarded. Jerome understood the verse as I have
punctuated it. Marti, Gramm.j and Bertholet, Comm., say that
"LXX" omits &r-nrT Jnns, which is not true; Kittel, Bibl.
Hebr., says that I Esdr. "inserts" bM")T tfnb.K "QSb , which also
is not true. Gluthe's restoration of the text here {Polychrome
Bible) is a marvel.

194 EZRA STUDIES

»*nvr ^air o? -jsmrn -i arab <n?t: D"is ^pi8
mm ^a2 rap hi ttbv °TM^ ,^-j «nb^ rra
tP]TOn nm9 ofibaab tfb "H <"jbtf fcr-aijb »arnra aonn

nrai n^n nb^ "p^an .&rain nbgb ijbrb 'ijtnE*o "piD-n
•jinb ->T 10 oibrc ^b *n n^n cn^ nnb ^nn^n^ xinb Dbwn^n ^
o^nisan KDbia ^nb |?Tan .^IGTD nb^b n

©nan b:? <
wnbsinb PIT nbui^ ^ n^i nb/j bs v^/2^ ran na

0 An explicative 1, meaning "even" or "namely," was certainly
used to a considerable extent in the Aramaic of this period. See vs.
9, "Oa*!, and also my notes on I Esdr. 3:1, 6 (above, p. 50).

p Generally regarded as plur. of a supposed fern, noun SnniTn,
"need;" so Noldeke in Kautzsch, Gram, des bibl. Aram., p. 175.
It seems to me more probable that it is the fern. plur. of the peal
participle, with the meaning "needful." The same form, in just
this use, is common in Syriac ; and the adjective, or its equivalent,
is intrinsically much more probable here than a noun. The con
struction according to the sense, "whatever (things) are
needful," is certainly possible, especially for such a slovenly writer
as this one; and the fern, is the gender to be expected. MT
points 'H , just as it points nt^'J for nt27J , "jirr for ~jST , y*TllH
for 2?*HX , atp for ai"O , and many others ; observe especially
that this very participle is pointed 'jTHDH in Dan. 3:16,
according to excellent testimony. And this all undoubtedly rep
resents an actual (local or late) pronunciation.

qThe "explicative" 1 again; see the note on vs. 8. For this
use "of *0a, cf. II Chron. 35:7.

rCf. 7:17, etc.

sFor the change of gender and number, "let it (all) be given,"
cf. vs. 5, and the note there.

lFor the reasons for ascribing these two verses to the Chroni
cler, see Comp., p. 10.

U0f. Dan. 2:5; 3:29, and see above, pp. 84 f.

vBoth "i"J and ban , used as in this verse, in the Elephantine
papyrus, ed. Sachau, I, 1. 14.

WMT inserts JT3TZ3nb before this word; plainly the lapsus
calami of a scribe who remembered what he had just written in
vs. 11.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 195

" ' T T

"a mn x
'a
n

xSee the note on 5:1.

yNot "a Hebraism" (Marti). Both forms of the construct
were in common use in the period from which our biblical Aramaic
dates. So DblS and Db^ , etc. The massoretic distinction between
the "decree" of God and the "decree" of the friendly kings is
natural enough.

zAn addition carelessly made by some later hand.

aThe orthography with 5^ may well be ancient; it is safest to
retain it. As for the meaning, there is not the least room for
doubt, in view of the common use of ^ID in later Jewish Aramaic,
to mean "be finished," "come to an end." Merely an
example of the stative saptiel ( ami , "escape," furnishes
another example); cf. the note (d) on 4:13, above. So under
stood in I Esdr. 7:5, o-vvereXeaOrj 6 ol/co?. To "emend" to the
plural would be a very foolish proceeding.

bThe "twenty-third" day of the month, as is made nearly cer
tain by I Esdras and Josephus (xi, 4, 7). The "twenty" might
easily fall out by accident; it would hardly have been added.
The following month, Nisan, was the natural one to select for the
first complete restoration of the cultus, cf. Exod. 40:17 ff.
This was the first month of the seventh year of Darius. Accord
ing to the Chronicler (who always provides an exact date), after
the people had finished building they still had a week left for the
celebration, before the beginning of the new year.

cAccording to Meyer, Entstehung, 54, fc^n "H is "offenbar
versttimmelt," and subsequent commentators have echoed this.
As for the pronoun, the fern, is quite as natural as the masc.,
according to all Semitic usage, and undoubtedly stood here origi
nally. And as for the connection: "namely, of the sixth year,"
there is not the ]east reason to object to it; nor would there be,
even if the Chronicler were not its author. The ellipsis is a
natural one.

196 EZRA STUDIES

sa"rn" ormra nn xnbtf n^n nsrn

banizr bs by

rDro wprfi 18 ©

^i ^nb« d[n"n]

*i nnb

-nrmpbrrm *nbi < -pnnsbsD, arDro wprfi 18 ©

IT "T" T \ • T

(Hebrew) o -^^n nimb ^w nrn^»3 Hcs" nx nbi3H ^

EZRA'S CREDENTIALS

(Ezr. 7:11-28)

> fc^TS^ s^nc'^r^n '^ nD"j2n inj ruiis *i in*j3j» i \^^ *%

(Hebrew) IT

TheChronicler ^rr^w
(Aramaic) T

dThis word was probably dropped from the text by accident,
at an early day. It cannot be dispensed with here.

eSo I Esdras, at this point: KOI ol Bvpcopol e^>' efcdcrrov TruXwz^o?,
and Joseph us also had these words before him. The words are
the Chronicler's own (no one else would have been half so likely
to write them), and they are in their original place, cf. II Chron.
8:14; 23:18 f . ; 35:15. They were accidentally omitted by some
one who thought that the verse ended with the reference to the
"Book of Moses." The exact form of the words is made certain
by the passages cited, and especially by the rendering of this
same translator in II Chron. 35:15 = 1 Esdr. 1:15.

fOn the orthography of this name see above, in the section 011
the proper names.

gMeyer, Entstehung, p. 61, writes: "Das Particip mit dem
abhangigen Noinen 5$nn "^SC kann nichts anderes heissen als
'der das Gesetz geschrieben hat."' He therefore concludes that
Ezra is especially designated here, in this official document, as the
author of the "Priest-Code." So far as grammar and usage are
concerned, this observation is precisely as valuable as the one on
pp. 16 f., in which he insists that ^niSUJnnn^ b? , Ezr. 4:7, can
only mean "against Artaxerxes." And as for the "Priest-Code,"

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 197

«»-:<: a

Db-irrb -iriEb anbi Trisrai bao'^ KB* 72 "n^b^n :rn:n-2

IT " T" T

tkrrbizj nbr remzii asba Dip -,12 -n ;bnp bDu ©;-irr «-»OT

T T ' T IT

nbnnbv5 ©n"1^ "i "inba rra ^oVrortyi -nrr by mpab

T • T IT ~

« bun n3"T2 bDn n?iz:nn h-i nriii ~cs bbi 16 o ; r=i:3-j;:j
baiiT3 "i nDnnb^ rvab "ra^n^ ^"rre

T T

"-! ji -pin n:i ^scsn 5j<:pn °^:^BCSS;
^1 nDbnb» mi ^i sniTj by ^n pa^pm t-iin^cai iinnn::

••'T T

rcnti «sc5 n»ra np;1; -^ns; bjn Tb^ ^ qran

•iHbsb ib rnn-

ITT

it is quite as purely a fiction of modern Old Testament learning as
is the "Hexateuch," against which designation Meyer (pp. 216 ff.)
rightly declaims. There was a priestly expansion and redac
tion of the law (which took place in Palestine, not in Babylonia) ;
but when once the true origin and character of the Ezra story are
recognized, there is not a scrap of evidence, external or internal,
tending to show that any separate "priestly law-book" ever
existed.

hThe emendation is certain.

'See the note (e) on 4: 14.

kThe omission of the subject (the pron. of the second pers.
sing.) is very awkward, but is also very characteristic. See Driver,
Introd., list of the Chronicler's peculiar syntactical usages, No.
27. A good parallel, e. g., is II Chron. 19:6 (end) : "and [he is]
with you in the judgment." So also 18:3, etc.

!The characteristic use of b in continuing the force of
another proposition previously used; see the note (n) on 6:7; also
above, p. 125, n. i, and below, vs. 28.

m Accusative of condition.

nSee the note on this suffix in 5:3.

°See above, on the foreign words.

pThe pa el, in this sense, is more common than the apliel in
Aramaic, whether Jewish or Christian. To "emend" here is pure
vandalism.

qCf. the beginning of 6:9.

198 EZRA STUDIES

swnnin -Nrcft20 o'DbraYr nbtf Dip ob-in ^nbtf rva
©tobE -TO rra "2 -run ^rrab -jb bsr -H -nbx

bsb Dst: D"to MbE
n arn

^ -pro
yrr ,

obbv4 o^ntni xsb^ n^ba b:? c^p xinb nab ni
i ^rn: »^^m ^"IST K^bi «^re b^ ^i

T T T ~ T T

o orrb? waiab ts^ti i^b w^bm ibn HTOJ
ttsip ^p ^Tn ^ "jnb^ n/^nr: ,sn73? ,xn:^V5
arn z"5T bsb .nnnD ^n^n -n x^ b^b y-"^n -nb

r"The god of Jerusalem;" the Chronicler is fond of making
the foreign kings speak in this way; cf. vs. 15, and 1:3. The
I Esdras Greek has accidentally lost four words here (8:17) : real
ra lepa a/cevr) ra SiSd/jievd aot, et? rrjv ^peiav rov lepov rov 6eov &ov
[TrapdBos evwTTiov rov 6eov] rov ev ylepovaa\^fji. The L text is
"edited" beyond recognition, as usual.

sCf. the beginning of 6:9.

Perhaps best pointed (on good manuscript authority) fcT*Q-Tj-
See above, on the foreign words.

uEven the Chronicler should be permitted sometimes to vary
the form of his phrases. The wording of MT here is not in the
least objectionable (cf. I Kings 18:32, for example), and it is
not even clear that Theodotion had a different text.

vSee above, on the foreign words.

wThe same phrase in 4:13, 20.

xThe one place in the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra where the
original consonant text appears to have written this pronoun with
out final H (Strack, Gramm. des Bibl.-Aram?, p. 8*). The
shorter form is found in the Egyptian papyri of the fifth century
B. c.

yCf. the orthography in Dan. 2:38; 3:3, etc.

zThis refers to the people, not to the judges.

aMT hm ; but the plural does not seem to have been read by
any of the translators. Probably a copyist's mistake, caused by
the ending of the preceding word.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 199

arm nribN -n am 12? *onb xb ^i brr6 osirri

T T

-n rfeb "p <C?W

ibEPi nbn nsTS -jn: TJJK tirniK ^nbs mrr f"p-a27

J'T , . , (Hebrew)

"b^n h:sb icn nton ^bn28 ©jnbwiTa ^s nin" rrn n^
mri" TD t^

bTliis is the best reading, even if the I Esdras translator really
had the singular before him. Those who were to "teach" were
Ezra and these lieutenants of his, whose office was imagined
as something like that of an itinerant bishop.

cSee my note on I Esdr. 4:39; above, p. 25.

d Vocalization uncertain. ^KD^ID, the abstract formed from the
pell verbal adjective, is perhaps as likely as anything. Qere ^IB^W •

eThis word, with the meaning "goods," also in the Assuan
papyri.

fThis joyful exclamation, following immediately upon the letter,
without the necessity of any intervening narrative, is the best
single illustration of the extent to which the Chronicler identi
fies himself with his Ezra, the hero whom he has created. Of.
Neh. 12:36!

gSee the note (1) on vs. 14.

hThe adjective "good" (derived from vs. 9) is added here in the
later form of the text which was rendered by Theodotion. The
old Greek version agrees with MT.

TRANSLATION

44Then the people of the land1 kept weakening the hands of The Chronicler
the people of Judea, and disquieting them in their building, 5and
hiring counselors1 against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the
days of Cyrus1 king of Persia. k

6And in the reign of Xerxes, at the beginning of his reign,
Bishlam, Mithradates, Tab'el, and the rest of his companions,

'See above, the notes on the Hebrew text.

kMT adds, "and until the reign of Darius king of Persia." See the note
on the Hebrew text.

200 EZRA STUDIES

wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judea and Jeru
salem.

7 And in the days of Artaxerxes,1 Rehum the reporter"1 and
Shimshai the scribe wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and
the text of the letter was written in Aramaic, and translated.11

Aramaic * RehHm fjte reporter and Shimshai the scribe tvrote a letter

Writer

against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king, as follows. 9Then
Rehum the reporter and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions,
the Dinaites, the Apharpathkites, the men of Tetrapolis, the Persians, the men
of Erech, the Babylonians, nnd the men of Susa, who are Elamitee, 10and
the rest of the peoples which the great and illustrious Shalmanassar trans
ported, and made to dwell in the cities of Samaria and the rest of the province
Beyond the River; — this is the copy of the letter which they sent to him.

To Artaxerxes the king; thy servants, the men from Beyond
the River, (send greeting.)0 n To proceed: (n)Be it known to the
king, that the Jews who went up from theep came to us. Jerusalem,
the rebellious and ivicked city, they are building; they are com
pleting the walls, and laying the foundations. 13Now be it known
to the king, that if that city shall be built and its walls completed,
they will pay no tribute, tax, nor custom, and the royal taxation
will suffer damage. HNow inasmuch as we have eaten of the
salt of the palace, and it is not fitting for us to see the king's
hurt, for this reason we hereby send and make the matter known
to the king, 15so that search may be made in the record-books* of
thy fathers; and thou wilt find in the record-books and learn, that

'That is, the king whose reign immediately followed that of Xerxes, just
as that of Xerxes was believed to have immediately followed that of ON rus;
see above.

mln the reorganization, by Darius I, of the Persian provincial govern
ment, an official was created whose especial business it was to report to the
king the progress of affairs in each satrapy (Noldeke, Aufsatze zur persischen
Geschichte, 33 f .). It is this officer who is intended here by the title cyi3
cf. the use of &O237I2 in 5:5. The old Greek translator, who rendered 6
TO, irpoffirliTTovTa, lived at a time in which the recollection of these government
officials was still preserved.

"That is, translated into Hebrew; there is no other natural or possible
interpretation. The narrator supposed that the Jews of the time of Arta
xerxes I did not know Aramaic well.

°The word of greeting is not present in our text, but may be understood.

PThat is, "from thy land," Babylonia. The reference is to the expedition
in the days of Cyrus, to which indirect allusion is again made in the following
chapters. See above, p. 161, n. 31.

^ Plural number, not singular; see the note on the text.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS or EZRA 201

that city hath been a rebellious city, and one causing damage to
kings and provinces, and that insurrection hath been made therein
since the days of old; therefore was that city laid waste. l6We
make known to the king, that if that city shall be built and its
walls completed, as a result thou wilt have no part in the province
Beyond the River.1

17 The king returned answer:

To Rehum the reporter and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest
of their5 companions who dwell in Samaria and in the remainder
of the province Beyond the River, greeting. 18 To proceed: (I8) The
letter which ye sent to us was plainly read before me. 19And I
gave command, and they made search, and found that that city
from days of old hath risen against kings, and rebellion and in
surrection have been made therein. ™And over Jerusalem were
mighty kings, ruling also in all the province Beyond the River;
and tribute, tax, and custom were paid to them.1 2}Noiu therefore
give command to restrain those men; and let that city not be
built, until from me command be given. 22And be ye careful not
to deal negligently in this matter, lest the harm be increased to
the damage of the kingdom*

23 Thereupon, as soon as the copy of the letter of Artaxerxes
the king was read before Rehum and Shimshai the scribe, and
their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem against the
Jews, and restrained them by force of arms. ,v 24 Then was stopped
the work upon the house of God in Jerusalem, and it remained
at a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king
of Persia.

51 But Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo,
uttered a prophecy for the Jews who were in Judea and Jerusalem,
in the name of the God of Israel whichw tvas over them. ~ There-

rl. P., the glory of the days of David and Solomon will return, and the
Jews will rule over all Samaria and Syria.

sSo, frequently, the third person rather than the second, in Semitic usage.
See the note on the text of 6: 6.

lNo Persian king or official could ever have written this verse, nor anything
resembling it. It is, on the contrary, an illustration of the old familiar custom
of the Jewish writers of the last centuries B. c., to give glory to their city,
and their temple, and themselvep, by proxy.

11 Lit., "to the damage of kings."

vLit., "by arm ai* 1 (military) force."

wCf. Deut. 28:10, etc.

202 EZRA STUDIES

upon rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Jeshua the son
of Jozadak, and began* to build the house of God in Jerusalem,
and with them were fhe prophets of God helping them.

3 At that time there came to them Tattenai, governor of the
province Beyond the River, and Shetharbozenai,y and their com
panions, and thus they said to them: Who hath given you com
mand to build this house, and to complete this colonnade fz *They
also asked* them: What are the names of the men who are build
ing this building? bBut the eye of their God tvas upon the elders
of the Jews, and they did not stop them, until the report should
come to Darius and thereupon a message be returned in regard
to the matter.

6 The copy of the letter which Tattenai, governor of the province
Beyond the River, and Shetharbozenai, and his companions, the
eparchs who were in the province Beyond the River, sent to
Darius the king. 7 They sent him a communication, and thus ivas
written in it:

To Darius the king, all peace. 8Be it knoivn to the king, that
we went to the province of Judea, to the house of the great God;
and it is being built with great stones, and wood is put into the
ivalls; and the work is done diligently, and prospers in their
hands. 9Then we questioned those elders,b and thus we said to
them: Who hath given you command to build this house, and to
complete this colonnade fc 10 Moreover, ive asked of them their
names, in order to make them known to thee, so that toe might
write down the names of the men tvho are at their head. n And
thus they made reply to us, saying: We are the servants

of the God of heaven and earth, and are rebuilding a house which
was erected many years ago, one ivhich a great king of Israel
built and completed. l2But because our fathers angered the God
of heaven, he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king
of Babylon, the Chaldean; and he destroyed this house, and car-

xSee the note on the Aramaic text. The phrase here implies nothing more
than the words of Haggai 1:14: "they came and did work on the house of
Yahwe."

yThe traditional pronunciation; but see above, on the proper names.

zThe meaning of the Aramaic word is uncertain. See above, on the foreign
word?.

aMT, "then thus we said to them;" see the nota on the text.

bThis would indeed be a singular expression for the hostile officials to use!

cSee the note in vs. 3.

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 203

ried away the people captive to Babylonia. lABut in the first
year of Cyrus king of Babylon, Cyrus the king gave command to
build this house of God. u Also the vessels of the house of God,
of gold and of silver, which Nebuchadnezzar had taken away from
the temple in Jerusalem and brought to the temple in Babylon,
Cyrus the king brought out from the temple in Babylon and deliv
ered to one named Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor.
15 And he said to him: Take these vessels, and go, deposit them in
the temple which is in Jerusalem; and let the house of God be
built upon its (former) site. 16 Then came that Sheshbazzar and
laid the foundations of the house of God in Jerusalem; and from
that time until now it hath been building, but is not completed.
17 Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let search
be made in the storehouses^ in which are the royal documents*
in Babylonia? to see tvhether it be true that command ivas given
by Cyrus the king to build that house of God in Jerusalem; and
let the king send to us his pleasure in the matter.

§lThen Darius the king gave command, and they made
search in the storehouses in Babylonia* where the documents8
were deposited. 2And in the citadel at Ecbatana, which is in the
province of Media, there was found a certain scroll;^ and thus
was written in it:

3 MEMORANDUM. {^In the first year of Cyrus the king, King
Cyrus gave order: As for the house of God in Jerusalem, let the
house be built in the place where they offer sacrifices and bring
the burnt offerings. Its height shall be sixty cubits and its
breadth sixty cubits. *Let there be three courses of great stones,
and one course of wood; and let the expense be paid from the
king^s house. 5Also the vessels of the house of God, of gold and
of silver, which Nebuchadnezzar took away from the temple in
Jerusalem and brought to Babylon, let them restore; and let it
(all) come to the temple in Jerusalem, to its place, and be
deposited in the house of God.[

*****

6Now Tattenai, governor of the province Beyond the River,
Shetharbozenai, and their^ companions, the eparchs who are in

d Plural number, not singular.

eMT has accidentally lost two words here. fNot "Babylon."

&MT, "the libraries in B. where the treasures were deposited."

h Encycl. Bibl., II, 1481 middle: "i. e., the cuneiform tablet"!

'On the lacuna at this point, see above, p. 159. kSee the note on 4:17.

204 EZRA STUDIES

the province Beyond the River, be ye far from thence. 1 Leave
the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews free to work
upon that house of God; let them build that house of God in its
place. 8And I hereby give command, in regard to whatever ye
shall do in co-operation with those Jeivish elders toward building
that house of God, that out of the royal revenue from the tribute
of the province Beyond the River the expense be diligently paid
to those men, without fail. 9And whatever things are needful,
such as young bullocks, rams, and lambs, for whole-burnt-offerings
to the God of heaven; wheat, salt, wine, and oil; according to
the word of the priests who are in Jerusalem let it (all) be given
to them, day by day, without negligence; 10so that they may offer
pleasant offerings to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of
the king and his sons.1

11 And I have made a decree, that if any man alter this edict,
a beam shall be pulled out of his house and he shall be impaled
thereon, and his house shall be made a dunghill, in punishment
for this. 12 And may the God who hath made his name to dwell
there overthrow any king or people who shall put forth a hand
to destroy m that house of God which is in Jerusalem. I,
Darius, have given command; let it be diligently performed.

13 Then Tattenai, governor of the province Beyond the River,
Shetharbozenai, and their companions, according to the word
which Darius the king had sent, thus they did diligently. uAnd
the elders of the Jews built and prospered, through the prophecy
of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they
completed their building" by the command of the God of Israel,
and by the order of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
The Chronicler 15And this house was finished on the [twenty-] third day of the
month Adar, of the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.
16 And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the
rest of the children of the captivity performed the dedication of
this house of God with joy. 17And they offered, for the dedica
tion of this house of God, one hundred bullocks, two hundred
rams, and four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel
twelve he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel.

'Vss. 9f. are the work of the Chronicler; see above.

mMT, "to change, to destroy;" the result of a copyist's error, see the note
on the Aramaic text.

. "Lit., "and they built and completed."

THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA 205

18 And they stationed the priests in their divisions, and the Levites

in their courses, for the service of [the house of] God which is in

Jerusalem, according to the prescription of the book of Moses,

[and the porters were at every gate]. | 19And the children of the (Hebrew)

captivity observed the passover in the fourteenth day of the first

month.

(The remaining verses (20-22] of the chapter give a brief
account, in Hebrew, of this passover. Then follows the introduc
tion to the story of Ezra, 7 : 1-10, this also composed by the
Chronicler, and written in Hebreiv. Vs. 11 introduces the "let
ter of Artaxerxes")

7 n Arid this is the copy of the letter which Artaxerxes0 the king TheChronicier
gave to Ezra the priest, the scribe, learned in the words of the
ordinances of Yah we and his statutes for Israel:

12 Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the scribe of the TheChronicier
law of the God of heaven, perfect [peace]. 13Toproceed: (13jlhave (Aramaic)
made a decree, that any one in my kingdom, of the people of
Israel, and its priests, and the Levites, who shall freely offer to go
with thee to Jerusalem, p may go; uinasrnuch as thou art sent by
the king and his seven counselors, to make investigation q regard
ing Judea and Jerusalem in accordance with the law of thy God
which is in thy hand; ljand to carry the silver and gold which the
king and his counselors have vowed to the God of Israel, whose
dwelling is in Jerusalem; lbas well as all the silver and gold which
thou shalt find in all the province of Babylonia;1" together with
the free-will offering of the people and the priests, which they vow
for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem. 17Thou shalt
therefore purchase diligently, with this money, bullocks, rams,
and lambs, besides their meal offerings and their drink offerings,
and thou shalt offer them upon the altar of the house of your God
which is in Jerusalem. 18And whatsoever shall seem good to thee
and to thy brethren to do with the rest of the silver and gold, ye

°I. e., according to the Chronicler, Artaxerxes II; to whose reign he also
assigns the story of Nehemiah. See above, pp. 38, 135 f.

pQn the very striking resemblance of this letter, in its substance and its
phraseology, to the similar documents (also composed by the Chronicler) in
Ezr. 1:3-6 and I Esdr. 4:47-56, see above, pp. 157 f.

<iln what follows it is made plain that the mission of Ezra included also
the institution of pny needed reforms.

rThis apparently refers to contributions solicited from people of the prov
ince who were not Jews.

206 EZRA STUDIES

may do according to the good pleasure of your God. 19And the
vessels which are given to thee for the service of the house of thy
God, deliver in the presence of the God of Jerusalem.5 20And
whatever other requirement of the house of thy God it may happen
to thee to bestow, thou mayest bestow it out of the king's treasury.

21 And I, Artaxerxes the king, hereby issue a decree, to all the
treasurers of the province Beyond the River; that whatever Ezra
the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require
of you, let it be done diligently; 22unto a hundred talents of silver,
and to a hundred measures of wheat, and to a hundred measures
of wine, and to a hundred measures of oil, and salt without pre
scription (of the amount). ^Whatsoever is by the command of
the God of heaven, let it be done diligently1 for the house of the
God of heaven; lest wrath come upon the reign of the king and
his sons. 24Aiid to you notice is hereby given, that upon no one
of the priests or Levites, singers, porters, Nethinim, or (other)
servants of this house of God, is it permitted to impose tribute,
tax, or custom.11

25 And do thou, Ezra, according to the wisdom of God which is
in thy hand, appoint magistrates and judges, who shall judge all
the people of the province Beyond the River, v all who know the

sSee the note on the Aramaic text.

lThe word is quite unknown, but this is its evident meaning.

"The gifts and prerogatives promised in the document thus far make
a list which is not quite incredible in itself; it is rather the form in which it
is all cast that betrays with certainty the Jewish authorship. It is interesting
to compare the imaginary letter from Demetrius Soter to the Jews, " quoted "
in I Mace. 10:26-45, where the author of that history deliberately sets himself
the task of composing such a list of royal grants and concessions as should be
truly "incredible" (cf. vs. 46).

But in the final paragraph of the Artaxerxes edict, where the king for
mally adopts the law of Moses for the Jews of all Syria and Palestine, and
gives Ezra and the officers appointed by him free hand to enforce
this law throughout the whole Transflumen(!), with power to imprison, con
fiscate, banish, and execute the death penalty, it is plain that even the last
vestige of probability is gone.

v Meyer, Entxtehung, p. 67, argues that this phrase means (and presumably
it does, since the Chronicler wrote it) the Jewish community in the
Transflumen, "oder wie wir sagen wiirden Palastina "[!], and then adds, that
the Jews of Palestine occupied only the one compact settlement in Judea.
That is, PnPW "Q3D "H &O23? bD is by these successive steps reduced to mean
only the Jewish church in Judea! This is convenient reasoning, but in view
of the constant use of the term " Beyond the River" in express contrast with
Judea, all through Ezra and Nehemiah, the argument cannot stand.

THE AKAMAIC POKTIONS OF EZRA 207

law of thy God ; and those who do not know it ye shall teach. 26 And
whoever will not observe the law of thy God and the law of the
king, let judgment be executed diligently upon him ; whether unto
death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to
imprisonment.

27 Blessed w be YahwS, the God of our fathers, who put such a The Chronicler
thing as this into the heart of the king, to beautify the house of (Hebrew)
Yahw& which is in Jerusalem; 28and gave me favor in the eyes of
the king and his counselors, and all the mighty officers of the king.
So I strengthened myself, by virtue of the hand of Yahw& my
God which was over me, and gathered out of Israel chief menx to
go up with me.

wSee the note on the text.

xCf. especially Ezr. 1:5 and I Esdr. 5:1. These "chief men" of Israel are
sure to appear wherever the Chronicler is the writer.

VII

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS
INDEPENDENT NARRATOR

i. THE CHRONICLER'S MAIN PURPOSE

The Chronicler is a writer who has received a good many
hard knocks — often well deserved — from modern critics of every
school, but one whose importance as a composer of Hebrew narra
tive seems to have remained everywhere unnoticed. He is not
merely a compiler and editor, selecting and shaping materials
which lay before him; he is also an original author, and possessed
of some striking literary excellences, which appear in every part
of his unaided work. It is the main purpose of the following
investigation to show, more fully than was possible in my former
treatise,1 the extent and the nature of the Chroniclers independent
contributions to the "post-exilic" history of Israel.

As I have already pointed out, and as will appear still more
fully in the sequel, the Chronicler's great task was to establish
the supreme authority of the Jerusalem cultus. in a-11
its details (see the statements already made. pp. 153-55). It is
evident that this authority had been sharply challenged, as, indeed,
was quite inevitable. ' So long as the Hebrews were all, or mostly,
settled in Palestine, and with a man of David's line occupying the
throne in Jerusalem, there could be no question as to the center
of the Israelite religion; but when, on the contrary, the Hebrew
state was overthrown, and the people scattered abroad, while new
Jewish temples were gaining in influence, the questions of
authority and centralization became burning ones. Just as one
and another of the great branches of the Christian church have
striven, with varying success, to show the apostolic origin of their
institutions, mainly to silence their opponents, so the Jews of the
Second Temple found themselves called upon to prove, if they
could, that they in distinction from their brethren elsewhere were
the real successors and heirs of David and Solomon, and that their

1 Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah, 1896. The main conclusions there stated, though new
and thus far only partially accepted by Old Testament scholars, are all, as I believe, quite
certain.

208

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 209

local traditions of the temple administration and worship were
really derived from Moses and Aaron.

Against the claims of the exclusive party in Jerusalem stood
some formidable obstacles. Of these, the most important by far
was the tradition, which had grown up, that Jerusalem and Judea
were not only completely depopulated by the armies of Nebuchad
rezzar, but that they remained thus vacant for a long time. Thus
especially II Kings 24:Uff.; 25:8-12, 26; Jer. 25:11 f.; 29:10,
etc. This tradition — due chiefly to a misunderstanding of
Haggai and Zecharaiah — was harmless at first; but when the
new Israelite seat of worship was established at Shechem, a most
effective weapon was put into the hands of this rival sect. The
Samaritans could claim, arid with much apparent right on their
side, that they themselves were the rightful heirs and the true
church. Jerusalem had had its long and glorious day, and would
always remain the most sacred of cities to the Hebrew ; but might
not the center of gravity of Israel, and especially the principal
seat of the cultus, now return northward? The contest of the
Jews with the Samaritans was really a life and death struggle, and
the latter possessed some important external advantages at the
start. There were doubtless also facts connected with the religious

tradition, to which they could appeal, and which could not easily
be gainsaid. They could probably prove, in a great many
instances, that not only individuals of priestly rank, but also whole
priestly families, had migrated into the North-Israelite territory
when Jerusalem was destroyed, and that their descendants were
now pillars of the Samaritan church. These were sons of Aaron,
and with them were Levites; were there any in Jerusalem who
could show a clearer title? Probably not, until the Chronicler
wrote his history, carrying back through the past centuries the
genealogy of the families who in his day constituted the loyal
Jewish church in Jerusalem, and the neighboring towns, and
excluding all others from legitimacy.

Nor was it merely with the Samaritans and other rivals in
view that this work was undertaken. The Jews had need to
justify themselves and their cult in the eyes of the greater world
round about them; see above, pp. 147, 153, 155. Moreover, the
glory of Jerusalem and of David's line was not duly appreciated,
even in Judea, ^specially now that the horizon of the people had
been greatly widened. Hence the Chronicler1 s marked interest

210 EZRA STUDIES

in foreign kings, and his frequent attempts to show the wide influ
ence of the Hebrew power. He adds an east-Jordanic list of
names at the end of I Chron. 11 (see below) ; describes David's
magnificent army, in 12:23-40; besides incorporating (especially
in chaps. 18-20) all the material of this sort from II Samuel.
He expands greatly the story of Hiram of Tyre in his relations
with Solomon (see below), and makes much of the incident of
Josiah and Necho. Further illustration will be given in the
sequel. It may be that the occasional accounts of great building
operations undertaken in more or less remote regions by kings of
Judah originated in this same tendency. And hence, certainly,
the large numbers which he so often introduces. He wished
his readers, and perhaps especially the youth of his people, to feel
the might and splendor of the ancient time, of which the preserved
record was so wretchedly meager (see below, p. 231, note). When
for instance, he narrates how Solomon, at the dedication of the
temple, sacrificed "22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep," we may
regard the exaggeration as a small outburst of loyalty on his part.
Not even Nebuchadnezzar, or Darius Codomannus, or Alexander
the Great, those mightiest of all kings in the popular belief of the
Chronicler's time, were able to make offerings on such a scale
as this.

An important feature of his undertaking, and one in which he
evidently took especial satisfaction, was the celebration of the
Levites. In magnifying their office he magnified the ecclesi
astical organization in Jerusalem, and at the same time filled what
must have seemed to him a serious gap in the written history of
Israel as it then existed. Side by side with the priests, these
temple officials held a most conspicuous place in the public wor
ship of his time. There was the main body of "Levites" with
their prescribed part in the ritual and the service of the temple ;
there were also the special Levitical classes of "Singers" and
"Porters;"2 then, on a lower plane than the Levites, but doing
an indispensable work, stood the class of temple servants called
the "Nethinim." These all had their minutely regulated duties,
and their own privileges and perquisites. The rights and duties
of these classes might easily be challenged, however, for through
out the greater part of the history of Israel they were altogether
ignored. The Mosaic and Aaroiiic institutions as described in

2 On the relation of these to the Levites, see below.

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 211

the Pentateuch do indeed include the Levites, but in the subse
quent history, from Joshua to the end of II Kings, they are rarely
mentioned. The Singers, Porters, and Nethinim received no
specific mention whatever, either in the Pentateuch or in the
other writings. The Chronicler believed that the ritual in which
he himself had an active part was the true Mosaic ritual; but he
could not have proved, from the Hebrew historical writings, that
it had been perpetuated in actual usage through the time of the
kingdom. Moreover, the Chronicler was probably himself one of
the temple Singers (as modern scholars have recognized), and
was proud of the office and of his Levitical brethren. He took
pleasure in doing them this tardy justice, showing in extended
narrative the part which (as he would have said) they must have
played in the history of the true Israel. But what he planned,
as has already been said, was not merely a "history of the
Levites;" it was a history which was designed to set the whole
Jerusalem church on its feet, once for all.

He took his starting-point, as a matter of course, in the insti
tutions of his own day. The Levitical organization as it then
existed; the various duties and prerogatives of the clergy; the
geographical distribution of "Israel and the priests and the
Levites'' in their cities and villages, as it was at that time; the
details of the worship in the temple; all these things he carried
back into the beginnings of Hebrew history, incorporating them
there and in the record of every subsequent period. He of course
made use of the already existing narrative, retaining every part of
it which could be made to serve his very detinite purpose. The
institutions of the Jewish church were thus given a leading place
—their rightful place, any zealous Jew would have said — in the
stories of David and Solomon, of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah and
Josiah, as well as in Nehemiah's personal narrative.

He proceeded in a similar manner in compiling the genea
logical tables, which, together with the story of the Return
from the Exile, constituted the most important part of his work.
The already existing lists, found in the Pentateuch and the His
torical Books, he used wherever they seemed desirable. But in
very many of the names which he repeats over and over again,
especially in the post-exilic part of his history, we may be sure
that we have the names of his own companions and friends, the
most zealously "orthodox" of the third century B. c. These,

212 EZKA STUDIES

whether priests or temple-servants or laymen, constituted the
inner circle of the Jewish church of his time ; and they, like their
cultus, were here legitimated. When he had finished his work,
he had shown that none of the pure stock of Israel, none of the
true representatives of the cultus, could be looked for outside the
territory of Judah and Benjamin. And he had scattered the
names of his like-minded contemporaries (in a rather helter-
skelter way, it is true) all through his account of the Restoration;
showing that these families were the ones which ': returned" with
Zerubbabel and Ezra, signed the pledge against foreign marriages
and the agreement to support the cultus, built the wall of Jerusa
lem in the time of Nehemiah, and helped to dedicate it. Here he
took the only possible way of placing orthodox Judaism safely
beyond the reach of the Samaritans and of the rest of the D3?
yn!$n (which included all the apostates of Israel) : the pure blood
and the true worship were transmitted only by ivay of Babylonia.
The zeal of the Chronicler for the pure blood of Judah and
Benjamin — as well as of the House of Levi — was always, and
must of necessity have been, a leading motive in his work. The
true stock of Israel must keep itself separate from "the
heathen of the land." Intermarriage with these foreigners
was unlawful. The northern Israelites, whose center was now at
Shechem, had intermarried to some extent — and perhaps to a
very considerable extent — with the Gentiles who lived near them.
The Samaritan church, which was probably founded only a short
time before the Chronicler wrote, came into being partly as a result
of the runaway marriage of a Jewish priest with the daughter of an
outsider.3 So the Chronicler and those of his school lost no
opportunity of asserting that the Samaritans were a heterogeneous
mob of heathen, recruited from many lands. The Chronicler's
aversion to the marriage of Hebrews with foreigners shows itself
in many places. Perhaps the most striking single instance is
found in the passage II Chron. 24:26, which is his own improved
version of II Kings 12:21. The story of the assassination of
King Joash of Judah is being told, and in the older account the
names of those who conspired against him are given as " Jozakar
the son of rOTEE , and Jehozabad the son of lETT ." The two

3 As I have already remarked (above, p. 168), it may well be that the Sanaballat of the
Samaritan schism — in whatever time we suppose him to have lived — was a man of Hebrew
origin. In that case, we must suppose that he was regarded as an apostate by the Jews of
Jerusalem, for some good reason.

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 213

names here printed in Hebrew characters are both masculine,
beyond much doubt; but the final D of the former one looked to
the Chronicler like the feminine ending, and this suggested to
him his opportunity. In the story as he tells it, the one of the
two conspirators (impious wretches in his eyes, even though the
king had deserved his fate) was "the son of r\2"2'2 the Ammo-
nitess" and the other was "the son of STT^ the Moabitess"
The alteration here made is one of the most instructive in all the
Chronicler's work.

These are the principal aims, or rather, the principal features
of the one great aim, of his book. Viewed according to our
modern standards of judgment, this was an unlawful manufacture
of history. From his own point of view7, and that of his contempo
raries, his purpose was a laudable one, and the method employed
by no means illegitimate. All those who understood what he
had done, but were not actually sharers in his intent, would, of
course, simply ignore his version of the history. It does indeed
seem for a long time to have received very little notice.

II. THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR

It is fortunate that we possess the most of the sources used by
the Chronicler in constructing his own version of the history of
Israel; we are thus enabled to see with the utmost clearness his
method of using them.

1. In the Books of Chronicles

The Chronicler's proceeding is, of course, an eclectic one. He
does not, as a rule, record the events of the history for their own
sake, but merely for the aid which they give to his immediate
purpose. He is not rewriting the whole history of Judah
from the standpoint of his owrn religious interest ; he is rewriting
only that amount of the history which seems to him desir
able.

Some considerable passages to which he can have had no
objection in themselves are either greatly abridged or omitted
altogether. In other words, it was not an object of his to incorpo
rate all of the records of Judah which he himself would have
regarded as both authentic and unobjectionable ; what he attempted
to do was to make a new edition, abridged in many places and
freely expanded in many others. It is certain that he did not

214 EZRA STUDIES

mean to supplant the books of Samuel and Kings; he intended
rather to supplement them. In the nature of the case, the chief
significance of his undertaking lay in the material which he him
self composed and added/ The older narrative furnished the
foundation and the lower framework, into and upon which he
could build the new structure which (in his view) was so sorely
needed. But both parts were necessary, the old as well as
the new, and the former must have its due proportion. It
was evident, for instance, that the text of Kings (namely, in
the portions relating to Judah) could not be greatly abridged
without defeating the end for which the new edition was made.

Wherever it is practicable, the Chronicler reproduces his source
with little or no change. Thus, in I Chron. 10:1 — 11:47, the text
of I Sam. 31 and II Sam. 23:8-39 is given in very nearly its
original wording.4 Of the two chapters thus reproduced, the one
narrates the death of Saul and the accession of David to the throne,
and was therefore important for the Chronicler's purpose.0 The
other gives a catalogue of David's most renowned wTarriors, and
some of the anecdotes told of them. The reason why the Chron
icler includes this (and adds to it also, in the next chapter
especially) is not merely "his fondness for lists," it is rather
because of the character of his book, as a repertorium of such
official statistics as these. If the lists of the later history were to
make the desired impression, those of the early times must be
given in sufficient number and fulness. He has, indeed, made
his own contribution to these two passages, in the shape of char
acteristic additions. These will be noticed below. Many other
chapters, or long passages, from Samuel and Kings are transferred
bodily in this same way. Thus, for example, I Chron. 17:1 —
20:8, in which we have a generally faithful transcript of II Sam.,
chaps. 7, 8, and 10; II Chron. 6:1-39 ( = 1 Kings 8:12-50);
9:1 — 11:4(^1 Kings 10:1-48; 11:41-43; 12:1-24). II
Chron. 18:3-34 is an almost exact replica of I Kings 22:4-35.

4 It is of course to be borne in mind that the text of Gen. -Sam. -Kings which lay before
the Chronicler differed somewhat from ours. The most of the many insignificant variations
which we see are doubtless due to his source rather than to his own hand.

5 The Chronicler must have had a keen personal interest in the many other narratives
of David; the stories of his youth and his exploits ; his friendship for Jonathan ; his flight
from Saul, and his magnanimity when he had the king in hispo\ver; and eo on. But he
could not repeat them here; they fell quite outside the scheme of his book,
which follows everywhere its one definite aim, and is constructed with considerable atten
tion to proportion. It is often said that the Chronicler omitted the story of Bathsheba
because of its detriment to the character of David ; but the fact is, it had no relation to his
main purpose, and could not well have baen included.

THE CHEONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 215

Similarly, 33:1-9 is a transcript of II Kings 21:1-9, and II
Chron. 34:15-31 of II Kings 22:8 — 23:3, and there are numer
ous other cases of the sort. The passages thus transcribed include
by far the greater part of the material derived by the Chronicler
from Gen. -Sam. -Kings. Of them in general may be said that
which is said by Benzinger of II Chron., chap. 23 (Comm., p. Ill) :
"Soviel als moglich ist vom Text .... wortlich geblieben."
The Chronicler gives himself no unnecessary labor. Among the
passages of the older history which he could use for his purpose,
there were many which gave him no occasion to introduce his own
special properties, since they offered no point of direct contact
with the Jewish church and its institutions or its personnel.
Such, for example, were I Chron., chaps. 10, 18, 19, II Chron. 9,
10, 18, among those which have been mentioned. Other passages,
again, needed no revision since they were already con
ceived in the Chronicler's own spirit. Such were I Chron.,
chap. 17; II Chron., chaps., G, 33:1-9; 34:15-31; as well as any
lists of names which could give real or apparent support to the
claim of the Jews in Jerusalem.

On the other hand, as is well known, there are many cases in
which the Chronicler, while using material from his older sources,
makes more or less extensive alterations on his own authority.
These alterations include, first, minor insertions and additions, as
well as occasional omissions. For example, in I Chron. 3:9 we
have a simple editorial expansion (cf. 2:4), and in 4:33 he adds
his favorite word icrPPin . In II Chron. 34:30 he inserts "and
the Levites," and such insertions as this are of course very often
necessary from his point of view. He very frequently interpolates
a verse or two in the midst of the matter which he is transcribing.
Thus, at the end of the story of Saul's death he appends a remark
of his own (I Chron. 10:13 f.) designed to show more clearly the
significance of the events narrated. In the account of the bring
ing of the ark into the temple, II Chron., chap. 5, he inserts a
characteristic passage, vss. 11-13, showing what an important part
in the service was played by the Levitical musicians. In 7:6 the
same thing takes place, and there are many other instances of the
kind. In I Chron. 11:41-47 we have an addition of another sort,
but equally characteristic. The source, II Sam. 23:24-39, had
just given a list r»f the mighty men of David's armies, reproduced
in I Chron. 11:26— 41«. The Chronicler, one of whose chief con-

216 EZRA STUDIES

cerns is the extension of Jerusalem's sphere of influence, even
into foreign lands (see above), seizes the opportunity to add the
names of a number of men from the country east of the
Jordan ; why should this part of the Israelite territory be left
out? The names are, of course, invented for the occasion; there
is no more reason for supposing a written source here than there
is in the case of the other insertions just described. There are
still other pet interests of his, of lesser importance, out of regard
to which he has occasionally inserted verses or longer passages.
Thus, his fondness for mention of the homage paid by foreign
kings and nations to Jerusalem and the house of David (see
above) leads him to make such interpolations as II Chron.
9:26G and I Chron. U: 17. Other similar cases are II Chron. 26:7f.
and 27 : 5 f . He is always greatly interested in building operations,
and especially in the buildings and the topography of Jerusalem.
Hence the isolated statements concerning these things which he
occasionally throws in for the purpose of giving fresh interest to
his narrative. In II Chron. 26:6-10, after transcribing the few
things which are said of King Uzziah in II Kings 15:1-3, he
proceeds to describe in detail the king's greatness.7 Vs. 6 nar
rates: "He broke down the wall of Gath, and the wall of Yabneh,
and the wall of Ashdod; and he built fortresses5 in Ashdod and
(elsewhere) in Philistia." And vs. 9 proceeds: "Moreover
Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate, and at
the valley gate, and at the angle of the wall, and forti
fied them. 10And he built towers in the wilderness," etc. In the
following chapter, in telling the story of Jotham, similar notices are
introduced. To 27:3rt, which is taken from II Kings 15:35,
"He built the upper gate of the house of Yah we," the Chronicler
adds: "and on the wall of the Ophel he built much. * More
over he built cities in the hill country of Judah, and on the
wooded heights he built fortresses and towers." Compare further
33:14, where it is said of King Manasseh: "He built an outer
wall to the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the

6 In vs. 23 of this chapter, on the other hand, it is probable that he found the word
"Ob'Q , " kings," in the text of I Kings 10: 24 which lay before him. Observe the witness of
the Greek and the Syriac, as well as that of the following verse.

i According to his custom, in order to draw sharp contrast with the passage which fol
lows, vss. 16-20. This whole chapter affords one of the best illustrations of his qualities as
a story-teller (see below).

8 So apparently, the word Q'HS' must be interpreted here, as occasionally elsewhere.
The text of the verse seems to be sound.

THE CHEONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 217

valley, up to the entrance to the fish gate; and he
compassed about the Ophel, and raised it to a very great
height." Similarly in 32:30 it is said of Hezekiah: "He
stopped the upper exit of the waters of Gihon, and
brought them down on the west side of the city of David,"
in which we have merely the Chronicler's more vivid version of
II Kings 20:20. Still another case of the same sort is in 36:8,
in the passage which has been accidentally lost from our Hebrew
but is preserved in Theodotion's Greek (as already shown) : "So
Jehoiakim slept with his fathers" (these words being taken from
II Kings 24:6), "and was buried in the garden of Uzza with
his fathers;" cf. II Kings 21:18, 26. In no one of these state
ments is there anything to make it probable that the Chronicler
had any other source than his imagination. He understood the
great value of "local color" for enlivening historical narrative, and
here also he followed his usual custom of projecting into the past
the things (in this case topographical features) which he saw with
his own eyes. Some other minor additions to the text made by
him in order to give greater liveliness to the narrative will be
noticed below.9

Secondly, thoroughgoing alterations. The passages of this
nature are, as we should expect, comparatively few in number and
brief in extent. They are of three kinds. The first case is where
thorough revision is undertaken in the interest of the Chronicler's
tendency; a thing which would very rarely be necessary, since
ordinarily the unsatisfactory material could either be omitted or
else set right by the insertion of a word or a verse here and there.
The second case is that of abridgment, where material not
especially valuable to the Chronicler is condensed. This, again,
is a rare occurrence. The third is where the Chronicler composes
freely a passage of considerable length on the basis of a few
words contained in the original source. There are not many
instances of this nature.

9 Some apparent instances of arbitrary alteration by the Chronicler are probably not
such in reality. In II Chron. 13:2 (cf. 11:20!), for example, it is presumably the text
which is at fault, and the most probable supposition is that a scribe accidentally omitted one
whole line of his copy. From the analogy of numerous other passages, and especially with
the aid of I Kings 15:8, 10 (where "Absalom" is plainly a mistake caused by vs. 2), 13, we
may restore with confidence as follows : ib Tip*1"! . DlbttDX fQ HD^E] TQX DIE"!
• n373S 113 bX'H'lX HI POna tr.X PUDS " And his mother's name was Maacah the
daughter of Absalom. And he took to wife (cf. 11:18, etc.) Maacah the daughter of
Uriel of Gibeah." The text of I Kings 15:10 which lay before the Chronicler had preserved
the correct reading.

218 EZRA STUDIES

The most important illustrations of the first case have often
been described at length, so it is not necessary to do more than
mention them here. The chief instance is the story of the coro
nation of the boy-king Josiah, in II Chron. 22:10 — 23:21. The
original account, given in II Kings, chap. 11, is here rewritten in
order to make it correspond to the recognized usage of the third
century B. c. The Levites, singers, and porters, and the machin
ery of the later temple service, are now introduced. It was possible
to do this without omitting more than a very little of the original
narrative; accordingly, the changes made by the Chronicler
consist chiefly in additions, as may be seen in Kittel's polychrome
Chronicles.™ The passage which almost immediately follows,
24:4-14, shows a different problem and therefore a different mode
of procedure. The older account, II Kings 12:5-17, in the
most of its essential features runs directly contrary to the
views and customs of the Chronicler's day, in a very disturbing
manner.11 The whole passage might have been simply omitted by
the Chronicler; but it offered some very interesting suggestions,
and, what is more, the impression given by the book of Kings
really needed to be "corrected." This was not a case where a
few omissions, or any number of additions, would be of any use;
the only possible way of dealing with the passage was to rewrite
it thoroughly, giving it a new form, and therefore a new meaning,
in practically every verse. The Chronicler would never change
the form extensively where the meaning remained unchanged.
The only cause for wonder here is, that he has managed to retain
so much (about three dozen words) of the original.12 Thisas the
only instance of just this nature. Another good example of the
Chronicler's free treatment of his material in the interest of his
greater purpose is found in his account of the bringing of the ark
to Jerusalem. The first part of the story, I Chron. 13:6—14,
can be left as it was in II Sam. 6:2-11, though a special intro-

10 Kittel's edition, however, is an unsafe guide. His over-lining of words and pas
sages is usually misleading, and so also is his use of colors, other than the light red which
marks passages taken from Genesis, Samuel, and Kings. The Chronicler's authorship of
the passage I Chron. 23:24-32, for example, is manifest in nearly every line.

11 See, for example, Kittel's Com?n., p. 149, where the various points of difficulty are
mentioned in detail.

^Benzinger, Comm., p. 113, makes the following rather careless comment on this pas
sage: " Im Unterschied von der Athaljageschichte zeigt sich diese Erzahlung auch in der
Form unabhangig von Reg; der Text von Reg ist hier gar nicht benutzt, vielmehr haben wir
eine ganz selbstandige Erzahlung vor uns. Das ist nicht die Arbeitsweise von Chr [!], son-
dern er hat die Geschichte so schon in seiner Quelle vorgefunden." As though an unusual
case might not necessitate an unusual method.

THE CHEONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 219

duction to it has to be written. But in the latter part, 15:25-28,
the text of II Sam. 6:12-15 requires considerable revision to
bring it into accordance with the Levitical ritual. I Chron. 21:1—
30, again, is a most instructive example of free editing. It is the
narrative of David's sin in numbering the people, and his pur
chase of the threshing-floor of Oman the Jebusite. The original
story, II Sam. 24:1-25, was unobjectionable so far as it went, and
the Chronicler retains the greater part of it. But to his mind it
fell short of doing justice to the theme. This was the time when
King David was led to choose the spot on which the temple
was afterward built, and therefore one of the most momen
tous occasions in all the history of Jerusalem. The Chronicler's
imagination was aroused, and he embellishes the tale in character
istic manner. When it leaves his hands, it has become more
impressive ; the scenes are more dramatic, and the incidents more
striking; and in numerous places the language has been altered
in such a way as to increase the interest of the tale.18 David sees
the destroying angel in the heavens with his drawn sword stretched
over Jerusalem; Oman also sees the angel, while his four sons
(unknown to the original narrative) hide themselves in terror;
and so on. Every feature of this embellishment is in the Chron
icler's own unmistakable manner. The story of Josiah's reforms,
told in II Chron., chap. 34, is altered from the account in Kings
in much the same way as the story of the coronation of Joash in
chap. 23. The older narrative, II Kings 22:1 — 23:20, is
improved upon by the introduction of the Levites, as well as the
singers' and porters. The long account of the removal of the
abominations from the land, told in II Kings 23:4-20, is con
densed into four verses (4-7), and transposed in order to show
that the king instituted these reforms before the finding of the
book of the law. The wording of the narrative in Kings is
retained as far as possible.

The extensive alterations of the second class, namely abridg
ments, are fewer in number. In some cases, where the material
of the older history was extended over more space than the
Chronicler could well give to it, he presents a mere summary.
One example of this proceeding has just been given, namely II
Chron. 34:4-7, which is a condensation of the account of Josiah's

13 The Chronicler is iiut long-winded, he is usually concise; and in a good many places
he shows that he has the power of suggesting a scene with sufficient clearness by the use of
half a dozen words, where most authors would need as many as sentences.

220 EZRA STUDIES

reforms given in II Kings 23:4-20. Another case is II Chron
22:7-9, where matter relating chiefly to the Northern King
dom — and therefore not wanted — has been reduced to the small
est possible compass, giving only a bare statement of the events
which concerned the king of Judah. Verse 7 summarizes II
Kings 9:1-26, vs. 8 is the abridgment of II Kings 10:11-14, and
vs. 9 is that of II Kings 9:27 f. In this case it seems plain that
the Chronicler is abridging the narrative of Kings from memory,
as indeed we might expect that he would.14 Still another example
is the story of Sennacherib and Hezekiah, as told in II Chron.
32:1-23. Here again the Chronicler abridges from memory.
The original narrative, II Kings 18:13 — 19:37,15 was much too
extended for his purpose, and contained many things which he
can have had no wish to reproduce. On the other hand, the reign
of Hezekiah was a very important one in his scheme of the history,
and the events of this siege, which were very well known, could
not be passed over altogether. So he tells the story briefly in his
own words, making it over entirely, retaining neither the form nor
the substance of the older narrative. This again is an altogether
unusual case, though it presents no difficulty.

The following are instances of the third class, where the
Chronicler improvises at some length on a brief theme provided
by his source. The short story of Josiah and Necho of Egypt,
told in II Chron. 35 : 20-24, is typical of the cases in which the
Chronicler builds up an edifying tale of his own on the basis of a
few words in the older history. In the first place, the reason of
the king's fate is made plain: he had disobeyed the command of
God. Then the details of the brief story show the writer's passion
for the picturesque, and the extreme vividness with which he
himself saw, in imagination, the things which he merely sug
gests to his readers. In this case, he has introduced features of
another narrative which ranks among the most dramatic in the
books of Kings, namely the story of the death of Ahab at Ramoth-

uKittel, Comm., p. 145, and Benzinger, Comm., pp. 110 f., are wrong in thinking that the
narrative in Chron. contradicts that in Kings. "Samaria" in 22:9 is the province, just as
in II Chron. 25:13, Ezr. 4 : 10 (see my note on that passage, above, p. 186), Neh. 3:34, etc.,
not the city. There is no discrepancy whatever between the two accounts. It is neither
said nor even implied in Chron. that the events of vs. 8 were chronologically subsequent to
those of vs. 7; on the contrary, vs. 7 is intended as the general summary of the whole matter.
Nor is it said (as Benzinger asserts) that Ahaziah was buried in Samaria( I ).

is The Chronicler had before him also Isaiah 36-39, as is evident from II Chron. 32: 32
(where we must read bl?T , as is shown both by the context and also by the witness of the
Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions). In all probability, the book of Isaiah which he had was
of the .same extent and form as our own.

THE CHKONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 221

Gilead, I Kings 22 : 29-38. The Chronicler had incorporated it
in his own history, II Chron. 18:28-34; and it seems to have
been again suggested to him here by the statement regarding
Josiah, in II Kings 23 : 30, that the dying king was brought back
from the battlefield to Jerusalem in his chariot. This brought the
whole scene before his eyes, and he sketched it afresh. The
incident of the disguise16 would suit here very well, as it would
show why the king's attendants were permitted to take him away
from the field of battle. As in the former instance, the king
was slain by random arrows, shot by archers who did not know his
rank. The fact that the story of Ahab was in the Chronicler's
mind is shown further by one striking verbal reminiscence, the
phrase "TVSnn "D, whose verb occurs only in these two passages.
A much more prominent instance belonging to this class is furnished
by II Chron., chaps. 2 and 3, the account of the building of
Solomon's temple. The motive for editorial alteration here was
of course the same as that which we saw at work in I Chron. 21 ;
the older narrative was too meager for the theme. In that instance,
a few additions here and there sufficed; in the case now before us,
the Chronicler took the history into his own hands, building up two
new chapters on the basis of materials contained in I Kings,
chaps. 5 f¥. Especially characteristic is the way in which the cor
respondence between Solomon and Hiram of Tyre is expanded
(cf. the mention made above, p. 146). A very good illustration of
the Chronicler's literary skill is his transposition of the first men-

word TUSFinn in 35 : 23 has often been challenged, partly because the "disguise"
comes so unexpectedly, and partly because the versions do not give the usual equivalent of
this word. The Greek of Theodotion renders as though pTnpSl stood in the text. I Esdr-
1:26 (en-ixeipei) and the Vulgate of Chron. (praeparavit) render ICSHfirV but with an attempt
to keep near to the usual root-meaning of tUDH i "seek." The Syriac is ambiguous — very
likely led astray by the Greek, as so often happens— but certainly did not have pTHnH •
The massoretic reading is undoubtedly right, and in all likelihood it is the reading which
lay before every one of the translators named, even Theodotion ; though in this last case
the Hebrew may have been foolishly corrected.

Verse 21 has given the commentators unnecessary trouble, for the text is perfectly sound.
The sentence: in'anb'q rP2 'xS ">D DTPl HPS "p?? & must be rendered: "Not
against thee (am I coming) today, but to the country with which I am at war."

\\£. Theomissionof the Hebrew equivalent of the words in parenthesis

is nothing unusual in Chron. ; see Driver's list of the Chronicler's usages, no. 27. Theodotion
probably rendered freely, but his Hebrew text may have been corrupt. I Esdr. and Jerome
try to make TlTOrixlO the subject of the sentence, and then each attempts in his own fashion
to solve the resulting difficulty. (The "critical" apparatus in Kittel's Biblia Hebraica sug
gests that the Vulgate read "1FIX n*Q i which in turn might have been a corruption of
"111ZJBI rPH • Further, ,,e are directed by this same apparatus to read HP^ "CX iQ P^ce
of the pronoun HPX • But even tbe Chronicler himself would not have perpetrated such
curious Hebrew as this.)

222 EZEA STUDIES

tion of Hiram (or Huram),17 the Phoenician craftsman, from
the account of the actual building of the temple (I Kings 7: 13 f.)
to the letter written by the Tyrian king, II Chron. 2: 12 f. Aside
from these examples taken from the Chronicler's narrative, there
are others, equally instructive, which show how freely he could deal
with the statistics which came under his hand; using what he
needed, and manufacturing what he pleased, always with his eye
fixed either on the actual circumstances and regulations of the time
in which he lived, or else on certain ideal conditions suggested by
those existing in his own day. Thus, in I Chron. 27:2-15 he
takes names which are given in II Sam., chap. 23, and builds
about them in characteristic fashion. What he aimed to establish
here was the regular monthly succession of these twelve great
captains, each with his twenty-four thousand men (the Chronicler
is especially fond of multiples of twelve). Another example of the
same sort is I Chron. 6: 46-48 (61-63), which is a free composition
by the Chronicler on the basis of material in Joshua 21: 5-7.

This will suffice for a description of the Chronicler's editorial
proceedings in the first part of his history, from Adam to Nebu
chadnezzar. As was stated at the outset, he ordinarily tran
scribes his source practically unaltered, selecting the chapters
which he needs, and 'transferring them in solid blocks with sub
stantially the original wording. It remains to ask whether the
edited portions, where the original source is expanded or
rewritten, are entirely the work of his own hand, or partly that of
some other editor. It often happens, of course, that definite
marks of the Chronicler's presence are not to be found. His
peculiarities of style and linguistic usage are strongly marked, it
is true, but such peculiarities generally have little opportunity to
show themselves in passages which contain merely a refashioning
—even a thorough refashioning — of older material. Neverthe
less, the purely linguistic evidence of his handiwork is satisfactory;

i^The Chronicler wrote in every case "Huram," for both the king and the craftsman.
The name of the latter, which has caused great discussion, is found in II Chron. 2:12 (corre
sponding to I Kings 7:13), 4:11, 16 (=1 Kings 7:40, 45). In II Chron. 2:12, 1^ DTlJlb
must be rendered: "Namely Huram, my trusted counselor;'11 and in II Chron. 4:16 the
translation of tlie words tl^blE "^b^b 1"QX D11H must be: " Huram, the trusted coun
selor of King Solomon;" for the peculiar construction in this latter case, paralleled several
times in the later Hebrew of the Old Testament, and especially in Chron., see KOnig, Syntax,
pp. 256 f. The Hebrew text (saving the variations Hiram— Hlrom— Huram) is correct in all
of the six passages involved. ]t is by one of the Chronicler's best literary touches that the
man whom he had made King Hiram describe as his own "intimate adviser" is later on styled
the "intimate adviser" of King Solomon.

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 223

a tell-tale word or construction appears every now and then,
especially in the verses which have been interpolated by him.
But far more important than any testimony of words and phrases
is the evidence of the editorial purpose. We have before
us a man in a definite historical situation, with a great problem
confronting him which we can at least partially understand. We
know something of the surroundings in which he lived, and a
little concerning his personal sympathies and prejudices. He had
before him our Old Testament historical books, and wished to use
them as a foundation for a new history of his own. He preferred
to make his extracts in the easiest way — by mere transcription —
as a general rule ; but where alteration was necessary or desirable
for his purposes, he was ready to take any liberty with his sources
(as every Old Testament scholar recognizes in such cases as the
story of David bringing back the ark, the account of the corona
tion of Joash, the frequent substitution of very large numbers, and
so on). The question is, then, whether this editor of whom
we know can reasonably be supposed to have done all the editing
and expanding of Gen. -Sam. -Kings which we see before us in the
books of Chronicles. And the answer is plain. There is 110
internal evidence, anywhere, of an intermediate source
between our Old Testament books and the Chronicler.
On the contrary, every minor or major alteration which appears
in I and II Chron. finds its obvious explanation in the Chronicler's
aims which have already been indicated. There is not even one
passage in which his proceeding is hard to understand. As for
the "sources" — a long list of them — which he names from time
to time (though he nowhere directly claims to have used any of
them!), they are a mere show, as will appear presently. He him
self, then, is the only editor with whom we have to deal.

2. In Ezra-Neliemiali

In the Chronicler's history of the Jews after the exile we are
obliged, unfortunately, to depend chiefly upon internal evidence
for our conclusions as to the sources which he used. We have
merely what he himself has given us, and from that and our
knowledge of his habits in the pre-exilic history we must form our
opinion of his editorial proceedings here.

We know that he has used at least two documents ; namely, an
Aramaic story, Ezr. 4:8 — 6:18, written by one of his own school,

224 EZRA STUDIES

and probably of his own generation; and the "Words of Nehe-
miah," including (as I have shown elsewhere) the greater part of
the first six chapters of Nehemiah.15 The methods which he
employs, in incorporating these documents in his narrative, are,
so far as we are able to judge, identical with those employed in
the books of Chronicles.

It certainly seems to be the case that both documents have
been left untouched throughout the greater part of their extent.
I have already discussed elsewhere the traces of the Chronicler's
hand in the Aramaic story (see above, pp. 158 ft'.). From Ezr. 4:8
to 6:8, and again through 6:11-14, there is no sign of his pres
ence. It is quite possible that single words, or even phrases,
may have been altered or added by him, here and there ; just as
we have seen him make insignificant verbal changes in some of
the chapters in Sam. and Kings which he transcribes. But we
may be sure that he has contributed nothing of importance to the
Aramaic passages just named, and it is quite likely that he has
not even changed a single word. Again, in Neh. 1:1 — 2:6;
2:96-20; 4:1 — 6:19, we seem to have solid blocks of the Nehe
miah narrative, transmitted with little or no editorial alteration.
Here also we must conclude that if the Chronicler took any inde
pendent part, it was too slight to deserve consideration. In one
place, 5:13, we seem to have one of those minor interpolations
which he occasionally makes, namely the phrase: "And all the con
gregation said, Amen, and praised Yahw&." i A few other things,
here and there, appear to give evidence of his presence, but it is
hardly possible to go beyond the mere suspicion. The language
and style throughout these long sections are totally different from
those of the Chronicler,20 and it would be out of the question to
think of him as the author of any extended passage.

The way in which the Chronicler makes considerable
editorial additions to these two documents in Ezra-Neh.
corresponds exactly to his mode of proceeding in the books of
Chronicles. The Aramaic story in its original form (as I have
elsewhere argued; loc. c/Y., p. 161) probably began with the words:
"In the days of Artaxerxes the king wrote Kehum the reporter

18 See my Composition of Ezra-Neh., pp. 35-49; and above, pp. 157-61.

19 Composition, p. 39.

20 This, of course, does not apply to the prayer, 1:5-11, which is built up of stock
phrases, mostly Deuteronomic, and might as well have been written by the Chronicler as by
anyone else.

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 225

and Shimshai the scribe," etc., as in Ezr. 4:8. The Chronicler
composed two introductory verses, 6, 7, at the same time
altering slightly the beginning of the incorporated passage. This
is just what he does over and over again, all through the earlier
part of his history; see, for example, I Chron. 11:10, 13:1 ff.,
II Chron. 1:1 ff., 2:1, 18:1 f., 24:4 £., 34:14. In the letter of
Darius to Tattenai and his associates he has made one of his
characteristic interpolations, Ezr. 0:9f. This passage, brief as
it is, is rilled with the tokens of his presence, as I have elsewhere
shown. It is not a case of revision, both verses are entirely his
own. Brief passages of this sort are interpolated in many places
in the pre-exilic history; with this particular instance cf. especially
II Chron. 2:9, 14, observing the addition to the text of Kings.
At the end of the Aramaic story, moreover, the Chronicler appends
a passage of his own, Ezr. 6:15—18, filled to the brim with char
acteristic material. So with the additions to the Nehemiah story.
Three verses, Neh. 2:7-9a, are interpolated at the point where
the king grants his permission. The Chronicler saw a good
opportunity to introduce one or two features in which he else
where shows great interest. Cf. especially I Esdr. 4:476—56
(and my notes on the passage, loc. cit., pp. 125 ff. ), and see also
my Composition, p. 36, where the numerous parallels are indicated.
His always lively imagination shows itself here in the same vari
eties of embellishment with which wre are familiar. He gives the
name (his favorite "Asaph"!) of the keeper of the royal forest,
and shows his customary interest in the buildings of Jerusalem ;
see above, p. 216. In chap. 3. vss. 1-32 are from the Chronicler's
hand. This passage appears to be an independent creation of his,
not based on anything written by Nehemiah, and it will therefore
be mentioned later. The immediately following passage, 3:33—38
(English trans., 4:1-6), has always seemed to me to be at least
in part the work of the Chronicler. I formerly thought (Comp.,
pp. 38, 50) that the most of it might be saved for Nehemiah, but
further study has convinced me that the six verses are all from
the Chronicler's hand. The passage sounds like his writing
throughout its whole extent, but the subject-matter is so unusual
that characteristic words and phrases are not to be found. With
PIT!, "restore," in vs. 34 cf. I Chron. 11:8. The collocation of
the two words t~T2 and rV2aJ occurs elsewhere only in II Chron.

T • T • »

28:14. And what was the "army of Samaria," before which

226 EZRA STUDIES

Sanaballat made his speech (vs. 34) ?21 The Chronicler's imagi
nation pictured a standing army of hostile Samaritans; it is less
likely that Nehemiah himself would have used the phrase !ffi
"pTJIE. Later than this (4:2) he speaks of a coalition and
the collecting of an army to come against Jerusalem, which is
something different. It is to be observed, furthermore, that the
three passages, 2:19f., 3:33 ff., and 4:1 ff., repeat one another
rather awkwardly, and that the awkwardness is very much in
creased when the Chronicler's interpolation, 3:1-32, is removed.
And finally, in regard to vss. 36 f. Siegfried, Comm., writes:
"Neh. bewegt sich durchaus in den Wendungen der nach-
exilischen Psalmendichtung." This is not altogether easy to
believe of Nehemiah, but we know it to be true of the Chronicler ;
and to the latter it seems best, for every reason, to attribute the
whole passage.22 His purpose in inserting it is precisely the same
which he had in inserting I Chron. 12:38-40, or II Chron.
21:12-15, or the many other equally striking episodes; namely,
the purpose of a first-class narrator to take full advantage of the
most important situations. The passage 6:16—19 I am also
inclined to attribute to the Chronicler for reasons which I will
not take the time to discuss here.28

Cases of thoroughgoing alteration of material are of
course not to be found in Ezra-Nehemiah. It is not likely that
any such alteration took place here ; nor, if it had, should we be
able to recognize it. The Aramaic story would never have been
corrected in the interest of the Chronicler's aim; its tendency,
from beginning to end, was substantially the same as his own.
There is nothing whatever to indicate that it has been either
abridged or expanded by him, or that any change in it was made,
aside from the few additions which have already been described.
So also with the Nehemiah narrative. If there has been any
more extensive editing than that which has just been pointed

21 Of course it is probable, as I have said before, that the Sanaballat of the Elephantine
papyri is the one mentioned by Nehemiah.

221 formerly thought (Comp., pp. 35, 47) that the presence of the word D^TIH"1 >
"Jews," testified against the Chronicler's authorship. This is not the case, however ; he
uses the word in I Esdr. 4:49, 50, as well as in Neh. 13:23. It is merely accidental that he
does not use it oftener.

23 It is quite likely, further, that the prayer of Nehemiah, l:5-lla, has at least been
edited by the Chronicler. Among the occasional words and phrases which I have suspected
of belonging to the latter writer are: the name, " Hanani," in 1 :2 (cf. 7:2) ; possibly 2:13 f.?;
the last clause of 2:20; the " Ashdodites" in 4:1; and the whole middle part of 5:14, from
rCTZJT2 to niTUr (cf. 13:6). The last-named passage is an important one.

THE CHKONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 227

out, we have at least no evidence of the fact. It appears that
Nehemiah's own personal memoir ended either with 6:15 or with
6:19. If the following chapters, 7, 11, 12, and 13,24 are in any
way based on material originally provided by Nehemiah, they at
all events contain nothing to indicate the fact. On the contrary,
they seem to be filled full with the Chronicler's own familiar
themes and materials (not at all like the things in which Nehe
miah himself shows interest!), and are couched throughout in
his own language. Knowing, as we do, his method of writing
the pre-exilic part of the history, where he originated by himself
about as much material as he obtained from others (see below), no
theory of editorial alteration in the last chapters of Neherniah can
have scientific value.

III. THE CHRONICLER AS INDEPENDENT NARRATOR

•

1. The Sources, Real and Imaginary, in I and II Chron.

The sixty-five chapters which make up the books of I and II
Chron. occupy fifty pages in Kittel's polychrome edition. Of
this amount, nearly one half is printed in plain black and white
by Kittel. That is, about one half of the material of this impor
tant document is known to us only as it comes from the hand of
the Chronicler, being altogether independent of any other docu
ments with which we are acquainted. Whoever approaches the
book with the idea that it is merely an edition of the canon
ical history (as it is sometimes styled) will be amazed to find
out how much of this added matter there is. And the character
of the matter, if anyone examines it carefully, will soon tell its
own story in unequivocal fashion. It does not consist of mere
appendages to the older history, it is itself the important part.
The whole work was planned and executed for the sake
of these independent chapters and paragraphs. Its author,
as we have seen, was a man with a definite and important aim,
and it was just here that his purpose was carried out.

The Chronicler, as he wrote, had before him the Pentateuch,
and the historical books of the Old Testament, from Joshua to
II Kings; the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and probably all, or
nearly all, of the other prophetical writings known to us ; also the
greater part of the Psalter. So far as we are able to judge, the

24 As I have shown elsewhere, chaps. 8-10 originally belonged to the Ezra story, and
were transferred to the book of Nehemiah through the error of a copyist.

228 EZRA STUDIES

form in which he had these books was substantially identical with
the form in which we have them now. Against the probability
that any other historical material of value was at his command
stand some very potent facts, as many scholars have remarked.
The Jews of the third century B. c. did not even have in their
possession historical traditions regarding the first half of the
Persian period (see above, p. 156), to say nothing of a still earlier
time. In the books of Samuel and Kings, which were given
their present form some considerable time after the fall of Jerusa
lem, was embodied all that was known of the history of the
Hebrew kingdoms; there is 110 likelihood whatever that other
records, not used by the editors of Kings, were in existence and
survived until the Chronicler's day.

Nevertheless the Chronicler, in a series of allusions scattered
through his book, presents us with the names of a most impres
sive collection of historical works, of which certainly the most,
and probably all, are otherwise unknown to us. These are the
following:

i: The Acts ("Hal) of Samuel the Seer. I Chron. 29:29.

2. The Acts of Nathan the Prophet. I Chron. 29:29, II
Chron. 9:29.

3. The Acts of Gad the Seer. I Chron. 29:29.

4. The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite. II Chron. 9:29.

5. The Vision of Iddo the Seer concerning Jeroboam the son of
Nebat. II Chron. 9:29. (The writings named thus far are said
by the Chronicler to contain information regarding the deeds of
David or of. Solomon.)

6. The Acts of Shemaiah the Prophet and of Iddo the Seer.
II Chron. 12:15.

7. The Teaching (ilhTi)25 of the Prophet Iddo. II Chron.
13:22.

8. The Acts of Jehu the son of Hanani, "which are included
in the Book of the Kings of Israel." II Chron. 20:34

9. A book written by "Isaiah the son of Amoz, the prophet,"
containing "the rest of the acts of Uzziah." II Chron. 26:22.

10. The "acts of seers" who are not named. II Chron.

25 The precise meaning of the worJ, occurring here and in no. 15, is uncertain. It must
at any rate be connected with the common use of the verb UJ"1T in the meaning "search
(for truth)," "inquire into," and the like. Perhaps originally this noun formed with the
prefix ma- denoted the "place where the inquirer is to search," and thence "authoritative
teaching." It is hardly safe to assume that the word in these two passages had the very
same connotation as the later technical term, " midrash."

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 229

33:19.2ti These are the seers who lived in the time of Manasseh,
and are said by the Chronicler to have written down his acts.

11. The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah. I Chron.
9: 1,27 II Chron. 27:7, 35:27. It is possible that in this arid the
three (or four) following numbers we have merely variations of
the same title. It is plainly not our Book of Kings to which
reference is made; see especially I Chron. 9:1, II Chron. 20:34,
27:7, 33:18, 30:8.

12. The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. II Chron.
16:11, 25:26, 28:26, 32:32.

13. The Book of the Kings of Israel. II Chron. 20:34 (see
the reference to this passage above, in no. 11).

14. The Acts of the Kings of Israel. II Chron. 33:18. Said
to contain the prayer of Manasseh, and the words of the seers who
warned him.

15. The Teaching ('JTrT:)28 of the Book of Kings. II Chron.
24:27.

The Chronicler nowhere expressly quotes from any one of
these works; he does not even say that he himself made use of
any of them as sources. But he plainly wishes to give the
impression that he is writing with authority, and concerning
matters which were well known, at least to the inner cir
cle in Jerusalem which preserved the true tradition.
Obviously, some of these titles are a mere literary adornment,
designed to give the impression just described, and any close
study of the evidence leads to the same conclusion in regard to
all the titles in the list.

The material which has come to us only through the books
of Chronicles is perfectly homogeneous, the work of a single hand.
It is impossible to suppose that any part of it is excerpted, as
the Chronicler habitually excerpts from the sources which we
know him to have used. It is certainly not the case that Samuel,
Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Iddo, Shemaiah, Jehu, Isaiah, and the
authors of the other "sources," used all exactly the same language
and style, and wrote with the selfsame tendency. But this is not
all. The language, style, and tendency, throughout these long

2t>The text of the verse seems to be corrupt. MT and Jerome read " Hozai," a proper
name. Theodotion probably had before him D^TIH (without the article), and this is
the most likely reading; <*f. vs. IS. The Syriac has " Hanan the prophet."

w So, of course, the verse must be punctuated, as in all the old versions.

28 See no. 7, and the note there.

230 EZRA STUDIES

and important chapters and sections, are those of the Chronicler
himself and of no one else. This is well stated by Driver, Encycl.
Bibl, art. "Chronicles," col. 772: "The style of the Chronicler
has remarkable peculiarities. It is not merely that it presents
characteristically late linguistic novelties, .... but it has also a

number of special mannerisms So constant are [these

marks] that there is hardly a sentence, not excerpted from Samuel
or Kings,2" in which they are not observable." And yet Professor
Driver, sharing the traditional disinclination to believe that the
Chronicler himself invented any long passages — though he sup
poses him very frequently to have invented short ones! — expresses
himself as follows in his Introduction2, p. 493. After drawing the
conclusion that all this added matter must be either the composition
of the Chronicler or derived from a contemporary ivriting, he adds,
in a footnote: "The former alternative is decidedly the more
probable ; but the latter cannot be absolutely excluded. The author
of the 'Midrash of the Book of Kings' may, for instance, have
used a style and diction similar to those of the Chronicler." But
this is lame reasoning. What logical value is there in the sug
gestion that some (why not all?) of the added matter may have
been composed not by the Chronicler, but by another writer who
wrote at the same time, with the same aim (ibid., p. 498), and
employing the same peculiar language and style? This is really
a reductio ad absurdum. It is time that scholars were done with
this phantom "source," of which the internal evidence is absolutely
lacking, and the external evidence is limited to the Chronicler's
transparent parading of "authorities;" while the evidence against
it is overwhelming.30 It may be added, that the hypothesis of a
"midrashic" source, of which such very free conjectural use has
been made by modern scholars, does not at all suffice to explain
the Chronicler's added matter. The latter does not consist, for
the most part, of moral and religious lessons, nor is it an expansion
or explanation of an older text. It is motived history; and the
one thing which is fundamental to it everywhere is the studied
purpose of an earnest man. Nothing is included by accident,
nowhere is any other aim than the Chronicler's apparent. What
we have is a consistently altered picture — the Chronicler's
own picture — of the whole history, every single portion sup-

29 The italics are mine.

so If Chronicles had not been a sadly neglected book, these manifestly untenable theories
could not have held the field for so long a time.

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 231

porting and supplementing every other portion. As has already
been said, it was this added material that formed the all-important
part of the work.

The Old Testament writers, in their methods and practices,
seem generally to have followed the traditions of their time; and
in thus making an impressive (though equivocal) show of authori
ties, the Chronicler was doing what many ancient writers of note
have done.31 What he aimed at was partly literary adornment,32
but partly also an apologetic advantage. He certainly could not
count on the immediate success of his improved version of the
sacred history, and it might be that even these allusions to ancient
waitings, presumably known in Jerusalem, would be of assistance
against the rivals of the Jews. I believe, however, that the literary
motive was the principal one. Be that as it may, the necessary
conclusion as to the origin of the material of I and II Chron. not
derived from our canonical books is this, that it was all freely
composed by the Chronicler himself, in the pursuit of his apolo
getic aim.

2. The Chroniclers Characteristics as a Narrator

So much has been said on this subject already, in the course
of the preceding argument, that it is possible to be brief here.
The Chronicler has some very strong points as a story-teller, though
they have been generally overlooked because of the traditional
view of him as a mere compiler. I have already given some
examples of the way in which he occasionally "retouches" the
older narrative by introducing into it local color and fresh incident
(above, pp. 217, 219). The story of Oman the Jebusite, as retold
by him in I Chron. 21, furnishes a typical instance. His imagina
tion is not the mere bondservant of his tendency. He very fre
quently creates new pictures and invents striking details with a
dogmatic purpose, it is true, but perhaps quite as often with a
purely literary aim. Few, if any, of all the narrators of the Old
Testament could surpass him in vividness of imagination. Every

31 See, for illustration, Bernheim, Historischc Methode, 272 ft. ; James, Apocrypha Aiiec-
dota ii, p. xcvii.

321 have no doubt that it is a purely literary embellishment when the latest editor of
the Books of Kings speaks of " The Book of the Acts of Solomon," " The Book of the Chron
icles of the Kings of Israel," and "The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah," as y-
of works which at least had been in existence: "The rest of his acts, . . . . were they not
written, etc.1?" It is not in the least likely that this editor had seen such chronicles, nor does
he say that he had. But uo wished to offset in this harmless way, so far as he could, the
humiliating effect of this extremely meager account of the Hebrew Kings. I Mace. 16:23 f.
is a very similar case, as I have argued elsewhere (Encycl. Bibl., Ill, col. 2862 f.).

232 EZRA STUDIES

scene stands out clearly before his eyes, as his thought creates the
successive incidents. Everything is alive, and in movement. He
is fond of putting things in the most concrete form, giving places,
names, and dates, even when he is thus taking liberties with the
older history. If his skill — or care — in telling the story were
equal to his powrer of invention, he would stand among the first of
Hebrew writers. But this is unfortunately not the case. In con
structing his narrative he is often careless, sometimes extremely
so ; his language is inelegant, even for the time in which he lived ;
and his style is slovenly to the last degree.

The following instances, picked up at random, may serve to
illustrate further his chief characteristics. II Chron. 22:116;
the statement that Jehosheba was the wife of Jehoiada the
priest is the addition of a true story-teller. This is perhaps a
little more than a literary touch, to be sure, since by means of it
the credit for the rescue of the boy king is given entirely to the
priests and Levites. II Chron. 21:12-15; the introduction of the
letter from the prophet Elijah to Joram of Judah is the same
sort of lively editing which we have in the case of the Hiram-
Solomon correspondence (mentioned above). Of a similar nature
are the speeches which the Chronicler is so very fond of putting
into the mouth of his characters.33 Their purpose is simply to
lend a certain dramatic vividness to the narration. A good exam
ple is I Chron. 12:18. In II Chron. 21:16 f. the Chronicler
removes in a picturesque way all the sons of the wicked queen
Athaliah, excepting only the one (the youngest) who afterward
reigned. The inveterate fondness for furnishing a date is illus
trated in 16:12: "And in the thirty-ninth year of his
reign Asa was diseased in his feet" (cf. I Kings 15:23). And it
is with names as it is with dates; where the ordinary narrator
merely tells the occurrence, the Chronicler gives the name of the
man. Thus 14:8: "There came out against them Zerah the
Ethiopian." There is no reason for thinking of possible "writ
ten sources," in the many cases of this kind. No one was better
able to invent such names than the Chronicler himself.

II Chron. 24:15-22 is a bit of narrative which illustrates both
the Chronicler's didactic habit and also his manner as a narrator.
Vs. 20, in particular, is characteristic: "And the spirit of God
came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he

33 See Driver, Encycl. BibL, loc. cit., col. 772, and note 2.

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 233

stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God,
Why transgress ye the commandments of Yah we?" The motives
which led the Chronicler to create this episode are obvious. The
sad end of Joash (II Kings 12:17-21), who had done so many
good things in his lifetime, needed some preparation in the pre
ceding history, and this was accordingly provided. Even after
the death of Jehoiada (the narrator would say), the king and
the princes were not left without admonition; the son of that
famous priest began to rebuke them, but was slain by the com
mand of the king. This was all laid close at the narrator's hand
by the needs of the situation; but the enlivening touches, the
spoken words, and the picture of the young priest "standing
above" the people, are marks of the Chronicler's individuality.
II Chron. 16:7-12 is another case which affords an excellent
parallel. Here the good king who goes astray is Asa. The
prophet who warns him is Hanani.3* Asa, like Joash, is enraged,
and puts the seer in a dungeon. Then this king also, like the
other, comes to a mournful end (as told in I Kings 15:23). The
story of Uzziah is another parallel. Here we are told in II Kings
15:5 that the good king became a leper, and the Chronicler tells
the reason why; II Chron. 26:16-20. This time it is a priest
who withstands the king and utters the rebuke which is quoted.
Cf. further 20:14-17, and 28:9-13.

The following are minor touches illustrating the Chronicler's
imaginative way of . narrating. I Chron. 11:23: "In the Egyp
tian's hand was a spear like a weaver }s beam" (cf. II Sam. 23:21).
We might also expect the Chronicler to give the name of this
Egyptian. 12:8: David's Gadite warriors were men "whose faces
ivere like the faces of lions, arid they were as swift as the roes
upon the mountains." And among these same warriors were those
(vs. 15) "who went over Jordan in tlie first month, when it had-
overflowed all its banks" And in vs. 39, those who came to
Hebron to make David king "were there with David three days,
eating and drinking." 28:2: "Then David the king stood up
upon his feet, and said, Hear me, my brethren," etc. II Chron.
13:4:: "And Abijah stood upon Mount Zemaraim, .... and
said, Hear me, Jeroboam and all Israel." 16:14:: When Asa was
buried, "they laid him in a bed which was prepared with per-

34 Known in I Kings, ^.6:1, 7 only by name, as the father of the prophet Jehu. The name
Hanani(ah) is one of the Chronicler's favorites, being introduced by him wherever there is
opportunity. See for example II Chron. 26 : 11.

234 EZRA STUDIES

fumes and spices of many kinds'" (Asa was one of the Chronicler's
favorite characters). 20:5: "And Jehoshaphat stood in the con
gregation of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of Yahwe, before
flie new court.'1'1 Vs. 16, speaking of a coming encounter with the
forces of Edom, Ammon, and Moab: "Ye shall find them at the
end of the valley, before the wilderness of Jeruel." The Chron
icler's imagination locates the scene exactly, as usual. Vss. 18 f. :
Jehoshaphat and all the people bowed down with their faces to the
ground, "and the Levites .... stood up to sing praises," etc.
26:16 ff., the story of Uzziah's trespass: As the king stood there
in his anger, "the leprosy broke forth in his forehead in the sight

of the priests And they thrust him out quickly from

thence; yea, he himself hastened to f/o out." 28:7: "And
Zikri, a mighty man of Ephraim, slew Maaseiah the King^s son"
and others whose names are likewise invented with the sole pur
pose of giving life to the narrative. 29:3 f. : King Hezekiah,
"in the first year of his reign, in the first month, opened the doors
of the house of Yahwe, and repaired them. And he brought in
the priests and the Levites, and gathered them together into the
broad place on the east." 35:20, at the time when Josiah went
out to meet Necho, the latter was marching to battle "at Cdrche-
mish on the Euphrates."

All the embellishment of this kind, which is purely literary, is
valuable for the light which it throws on the Chronicler's qualities
as a composer of narrative. It has received little attention hith
erto, for the obvious reason that it has been customary to relieve
the Chronicler of the responsibility for this material, supposing
him to have derived it from older writers, especially "the mid-
rashic source" and "the lost book of Kings." But every particle
of it bears the plain stamp of one man's hand.

Those independent contributions to the history which have
been made by the Chronicler in the interest of the Levitical
organization, and of the religious beliefs and practices of his day,
have been treated often and well; though they have not been
adequately studied from the literary side, and even those who have
discussed them most fully have been content to leave open the
bewildering possibility that they (or some of them) were not
written by the Chronicler, bat by another man who lived at about
the same time, had the same views, and wrote in the same peculiar
manner. Examples of narrative which originated in the Chroni-

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 235

clerks well-known prejudices may be passed over here, important
as they are. But, as I have already shown, he was not a mere
dealer in midrashim, but the champion of a great cause. His
interest in the Levitical organization was only one feature (though
a very important feature) of his interest in all the peculiarly
Jewish religious institutions. And he repeatedly invents historical
episodes in which his controversial purpose can be seen.

His defense of the sole authority of the church in Jerusalem,
and his half-concealed polemic35 against the Samaritans in partic
ular, make their appearance with emphasis as soon as he comes
in his history to the dividing of the kingdom. The reason why
the Northern Kingdom of Israel is generally left out of account by
him is mainly because it lay outside the sphere of his chief pur
pose,36 but is found also in the fact that in his own day rival
Hebrew organizations, and especially the church on Mount Gerizim,
were using the existence of this Northern Kingdom as a weapon
against the pretensions of the Jews. At the very beginning of
his account of the schism, in the story of Abijah and his war with
Jeroboam, the Chronicler lays down his main thesis in a very
conspicuous manner. The king of Judah delivers an oration,
II Chron. 13:4—12, in which, after showing that the men of the
northern kingdom were apostates and idolaters (vss. 5-8), he utters
these words: "9Have ye not driven out the priests of Yah we, the
sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and have made for yourselves
priests from the people of the land?*'1 Whoever cometh to conse
crate himself with a young bullock and seven rams, he may become
a priest to your false gods. 10But as for us, Yahwe is our God,
and we have not forsaken him. We have priests ministering to
Yahwe, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites in their work. "And
they [i. e., the priests]38 burn unto Yahwe every morning and every
evening burnt offerings and sweet incense; the showbread also
is set in order on the pure table, and the golden candlestick with

35 He was of course much too shrewd a man to introduce into his history any open
polemic against the Samaritans. Anything resembling this must immediately have spoiled
the effect of his whole work. If it could easily be recognized as a party document, he might
as well have spared himself the trouble of writing it. His whole hope of success lay in giving
it the appearance of history, built up out of material which antedated the Samaritan
schism.

36 And yet we can imagine that the Chronicler, with his zeal for the glory of the Hebrew
people as over against the other peoples of the earth, might have been glad to make mention
of the external prosperity of such reigns as those of Ahab and Jeroboam II.

37 Read r"!l3£""lXn te*^y^3 i following the Greek, ex TOV AaoG T»;« -yi??.

3sThe Chronicler, in his usual slovenly style, attaches the participle D"Hl2pT2 to its
predr-cessor DTTTCJTO as though nothing had intervened.

236 EZRA STUDIES

its lamps, to burn every evening. For we keep the charge of
Yahwe our God, but ye have forsaken him" The purpose of all
this is as plain as day. It is precisely the main purpose of the
whole book of Ezra, and of chaps. 7—13 of the book of Nehemiah ;
namely, to show that the Samaritans, who claimed to be the heirs
of the Northern Kingdom, and a legitimate branch of the people
of Yah we-, had no right to recognition. The Chronicler here, as
elsewhere, insists on the pure blood, not contaminated by inter
marriage; and he enumerates the details of the orthodox forms of
the worship, as it existed in his day in Jerusalem, but nowhere
else, not even on Mount Gerizim. The Samaritan priests are men
of the rfi£"^H ^"-2 , however near they may keep to the regula
tions of the Pentateuch.39 So also with the rest of the officials
and the apparatus of the temple. In the church which had its
center at Shechem, the Levites of the Chronicler's Jerusalem,
with their important tasks and elaborate organization, did not
exist.40 Jerusalem preserved the true tradition of the cult; in
departing from it these northern rivals were apostates. In the
development of his theme the Chronicler composes here an elabo
rate narrative of 18 verses, containing the account of an ambush,
the slaying of 500,000 men of the Northern Kingdom (thus the
pure Hebrew stock there suffered a great diminution at the very
beginning!), and the names of the cities which Judah captured on
this occasion.

Another instance of this nature is II Chron. 25:6-10, 13.
Amaziah, in undertaking an important expedition against the
Edomites, hires a large body of warriors from Israel. A prophet
warns him that "Yah we is not with" the people of the Northern
Kingdom; so he sends the army back, and it returns home "in
fierce anger." Bent on revenge, it lays waste the cities of northern
Judea. Similar in its motive, again, is the story told in 28:6-15.
This is very lively, and full of incident. The principal scene is
vividly sketched, two speeches are reported verbatim, and the
names of nine characters, otherwise unknowrn, are given. This

39 With the "young bullock and seven rams " of vs. 9 compare Exod. 29: 1, 35, etc. Per
haps the Chronicler is not trying to be exact in these verses, but it may well be that we are
to recognize in them both what was and what was not included in the official ritual of tbe
Samaritan church in the Chronicler's day.

•tuThe term "Levites" here of course includes "porters" and "singers," just as it does
everywhere else in Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. where there is no special reason for distinguishing the
separate classes. In the following narrative, vss. 12, 14, the priests appear with trumpets as
in I Chron. 15: 24, Ezr. 3:10, Neh. 12: 35, etc. This occasion (actual battle !) would be no place
for the "singors." Kittel, Comm., p. 130, writes without due consideration.

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 237

affords a very good example, in brief compass, of the Chroniclers
skill as a novelist.

A considerable part of the Chronicler's independent narrative
is not controversial at all, but simply composed with a didactic aim.
In the cases of this kind, as in the others, it is his habit to carry
back into the history of earlier times the things which he either
saw, or would like to see, in his own day. A very good
example is furnished by the two passages, II Chron. 17:7—10 and
19:4-11. King Jehoshaphat wished all his people to know the
Pentateuch and be governed by it. He therefore in the third
year of his reign appointed men to visit all the cities of Judah,
teaching the law of Moses and acting as judges in accordance
with it (17:7 ff.). This worked so well that "the fear of Yahwe
fell upon all the kingdoms of the lands that were round about
Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat" (vs. 10).
Some years later, accordingly, after the king had become well
established in his kingdom, he renewed this appointment of judges
and teachers, making the organization more formal and thorough,
as well as more permanent (19:4ff.). The result was just the
same as in the former case. Jehoshaphat and his people immedi
ately triumphed over a great hostile army, without the necessity
of striking a single blow (20:1-28). "And the fear of God was
on all the kingdoms of the lands, when they heard that Yahwe
fought against the enemies of Israel" (vs. 29). These judges
and teachers are said by the Chronicler, in both cases, to consist
of prominent men of Judah, priests, and Levites.41 Through
their co-operation was made possible a uniform knowledge of
the divine law, arid a uniform administration of it, all through
the land. Beside the local seats of justice there was the central
seat, in Jerusalem (19:8). All this, as has often been remarked,
corresponds closely to conditions which actually existed in the
land at the close of the last century B. c. (see Josephus, Antt., iv,
214-18, andSchtirer, Geschichte\ II, 176-79), and probably also
in the time of the Chronicler. He doubtless had in mind a still
more thorough and efficient system, and hoped to see it extended.
How fundamentally important it seemed to him may be seen from
II Chron. 15:3, Ezr. 7:10, 25 f., 10:14. Ezra the priest was a
judge and a teacher himself, administering the law of Moses, and
he appointed others for the same important work. On the Levites

41 In 17 : 7 f., " princes, Levites, and priests,'1 exactly as in Neh. 10 : 1, etc.

238 EZRA STUDIES

as judges and teachers, see also I Chron. 23:4, 26:29, Neh. 8:7, 9;
and with II Chron. 19:11 cf. especially Neh. ll:22-24.42

3. The "Ezra Memoirs"

From what has been said, above, as to the character of the
Chronicler's work, that it is an elaborate historical apology for
the Jewish institutions of his time, it is obvious that the center of
gravity in it must lie in his account of the restoration.
The one possible key to the situation which confronted him was a
formal and thoroughgoing "restoration" through the medium of
the Babylonian captivity (see above, pp. 208, 212). There was
no other way in which the primacy of the Jewish church, and the
exclusion of its rivals, could be assured — now that those ill-fated
verses, II Kings 24:14 ff., 25:8-12, 22, 25 f., had been written and
widely circulated. It was absolutely necessary to show that the
genuine old Hebrew church, both its men and its institutions,
came straight from Babylonia to Judea, and that the ancient
stream of tradition had been kept uncontaminated.

We should accordingly expect that the Chronicler, in passing
on from the story of the kingdom to that of the Persian period,
would begin to show the measure of his best work. That is, in
fact, what we do see. The amount of the independent material
which he contributes is proportionately but little greater here, it
is true, than in the earlier sections. In I and II Chron., as wex
have seen, nearly one-half of the whole was composed by him;
and here in Ezr.-Neh. his contribution amounts to about two-
thirds, consisting largely of lists of names. But it is in some
respects work done more thoroughly (not more carefully; the
Chronicler never did anything with great care) than any of that
which preceded it. So far as the author's manner and his literary
habits and devices are concerned, the Chronicler's narrative in
Ezr.-Neh. presents nothing at all that is new, excepting the (very
natural) use of the first person in the story of Ezra, in imitation

*'* Benzinger's amazing comments on the two passages, II Chron. 17:7 ff. and 19:4 ff.,
are characteristic of the manner in which he has hastened through the books of Chronicles

(Comm., p. 104): " Das erbauliche Element in dor Erzahlucg fehlt ganzlich Sodann

ist nicht einzusehen, wozu die Erflndung der Namen der obersten Beamten 17:7 gedient
hatte. Bei einem Produkt freier Phantasie hatte sich Chr. resp. seine Quelle an den Pries-
tern und Leviten gentigen lassen Chr. und seine Zeit batten die Verkiindigung

des Gesetzes den Leviten und Priestern allein iiberlassen, deren Amt das war; vgl. die
Gesetzesverlesung Noh. 8, bes. v. 7. 8" (and yet it is obvious that in Neh. 8:4 laymen are
intended, and the most of the names are actually found, as names of "chief men of the
people," in Neh. 10:15-28 and Ezr. 10:25-43). And both Benzinger and Kittel find it notice
able that the laymen are mentioned first, in 17 : 7 f. ! In 19 : 8 point of course

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 239

of the memoir of Nehemiah. But the opportunity which he had
-^here to show his inventive ability and his constructive skill was
much greater than any which he had had previously. He had
before him, as usable material, two documents. The first was an
Aramaic popular tale of the building of the temple, recently com
posed by one of his own way of thinking. It was dated, unmis
takably, in the reigns of Artaxerxes I and Darius II. The second
was the memoir of Nehemiah, telling of the building of the city
wall. This was dated in the reign of a certain "Artaxerxes,"
who, if the Aramaic story was right, must have been Artaxerxes II.
So the Chronicler evidently reasoned, on the basis of Ezr. 4:19-24.
Aside from these two documents, and the few data in the prophets
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the whole Persian period was a
blank, which he was free to fill as he saw fit.

From his account of the last days of the kingdom of Judah
and the destruction of the temple (nearly all of II Chron. 35, and
36:13-21, being his own free composition) he proceeds directly
to narrate the restoration at the beginning of the Persian rule.
This is told in his well-known manner, with primary attention to
all the details connected with the Jewish church, and the smallest
possible amount of other narrative. There is no evidence, nor
likelihood, that he had any written source, other than those
already named. He tells of the proclamation of Cyrus (Ezra,
chap. 1), and how the king restored the sacred vessels; he also
gives (in I Esdras 4:47-56) the contents of the letters of Cyrus to
his Syrian officials, with prescription for all the principal institu
tions and ordinances of the Jewish community as the Chronicler
imagined it. He gives the date (of course!) of the great return,
and the names and lineage of the leaders (I Esdras 5:4-6) ; and
then the all-important list, outside of which there was no ecclesi
astical salvation. In Ezra 3 and 4:1-5 he narrates how the
returning exiles settled in the land, restored the worship as far
as possible, and began building the temple. In 3:12f. we have
one of those descriptive touches of which he is master. It is
worthy of especial notice how in 4:1-5 he does the same thing
which he had done in II Chron. 13:4-11 (see above). Just as
the speech of Abijah, made after the division of the kingdom,
showTed that the true tradition was in Jerusalem and not in north
ern Israel, so lieu, immediately after the return, the fact is stated
with emphasis that the Samaritans (purposely called by the non-

240 EZRA STUDIES

committal term, "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin") have no
part in the true worship of the God of Israel, although they
claim to have it.

But the story of Ezra is the episode of especial interest in this
"post-exilic" history, and the one which best illustrates the quali
ties which have been described. It is "the Chronicler's master
piece" (Com})., p. 57). I showed in my former brief treatise
that he is the sole author of this, and the proof there given, while
it might have been extended much farther, was more than suffi
cient.43 It is singular that the fact should have remained so long
unrecognized. A generation or more ago, wrhen it was still
believed that there was a "post-exilic style" of Hebrew prose, it
was easy to believe that these supposed three men, the Chronicler,
Ezra, and Nehemiah, could all write in exactly the same way. But
the time for such an easy-going theory is long past, now that we
know that the authors of the books Joel, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi, Jonah, Ruth, Nehemiah (in chaps. 1-6), Koheleth,
Esther, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the writer of the "Priestly Narra
tive" in the Pentateuch — not to mention still others — wrote each
in his own individual manner, and no one of them in a style
which at all resembles that of the Chronicler.

First, as to the fact that the whole of the "Ezra memoir"
(especially Ezr. 7:27— 10:44 and Neh. 7:70—10:40) is written
in the Chronicler's own words, whether created by him
entire or merely rewritten. It is only necessary to ask three
questions: (1) Is there such a thing as a characteristic style;
i. e., a recognizable individuality in the use of words and phrases
and in the manner of expressing ideas? (2) Did the Chronicler
have a style which can be recognized? (3) In what passages or
chapters of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. is it to be found with certainty?
The first of these questions must of course be answered affirma
tively. The answer to the second is, or ought to be, known to
every student of Hebrew. There is no ivriter, in all the Old Tes
tament, whose peculiarities of language and style are so strongly
marked, or who can so easily and certainly be recognized, as the
Chronicler.44 In answer to the third question I make the folio w-

43 Most of the reviewers of my Composition passed very hastily over the evidence of
language and style, as though these were matters of minor importance! In nearly every
case, however, they acknowledged the justice of the claim which I had made (p. 16), that
my lists of words and usages were trustworthy so far as they went. One reviewer, LOhr, in
the Theol. Rundschau, 1898, pp. 331 f., asserted the contrary, with a succession of statements
which are not only misleading but in part positively unfair.

the statement of Professor Driver, already quoted f above, p. 230).

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 241

ing assertion, which is the assured result of a good deal of hard
study: There is no portion of the whole work Chron.-Ezr.-Neh.
in which the Chroniclers literary peculiarities are more strongly
marked, more abundant, more evenly and continuously distrib
uted, and more easily recognizable, than in the Hebrew narra
tive of Ezr. 7-10 and Neh. 8-10. Sufficient proof of this can be
seen by anyone even in the long "list of peculiar usages" pub
lished in Driver's Introduction, or in that given in Geissler's
Litterar. Beziehungen der Esramemoiren, 1899, pp. 5-11, 45 with
out the necessity of going farther. How does it happen that the
Chronicler, and "Ezra" (everywhere), and Nehemiah (every
where excepting in chaps. 1-6!) all write just the same very
peculiar Hebrew? So far as this phenomenon has been noticed
at all, it has been customary to explain it by saying that the
Chronicler as editor gave the writings of Ezra and Nehemiah a
stylistic revision: "weil ja der Verf . (Chroniker) die Denkschrift
Esra's umgeschrieben und in sein Buch aufgenommen hat, wobei
sich leicht seine Sprachfarbung dem Texte rnittheilte" (von
Orelli, in the Theol. Liter aturblatt, 1898, p. 290). But those
who attempt this explanation show that they neither realize the
extent of this "revision" nor have an acquaintance with the
Chronicler's editorial methods. He also edited Neh., chaps. 1, 2,
4-6, but left all this apparently untouched, saving a few verses
which he added or inserted, and which contain the only sure
marks of his hand. More important still, wTe know just how he
has edited the multitude of long extracts from the books of Sam
uel and Kings. The material of which he has made use there has
not been given his "Sprachfarbung." His peculiar words and
usages, such as those given in the long list just mentioned, are
almost never found in the chapters and paragraphs which he has
transferred; and even in the comparatively few cases where he
has revised or expanded the older narrative they are not at all
common. The only passages in which his characteristics

45 Geissler's investigation is industrious and useful, but his conclusions in the
matters now under discussion are singularly at variance with the evidence which he pre
sents. After showing the enormous extent to which the literary stock-in-trade of " Ezra "
coincides with that of the Chronicler, he goes on to discuss the words and phrases occurring
both in "Ezra" and in the Hexateuch (pp. 12-21), presenting an array of evidence which
proves nothing more than this, that the Chronicler wrote Hebrew and had read his Bible.
He then presents (pp. 22 f.) the linguistic material peculiar to the "Ezra memoirs."
What is gained from this very meager list, and from the remarks which follow it, is merely
the certainty that a few words and phrases found in Ezra are not found in Chron., and vice
versa; i.e., that the Chronicler really had at his command as large a vocabulary as he
might be expected to have.

242 EZRA STUDIES

appear frequently, in successive verses and many times
on a single page — as they appear all the time in the
Ezra story — are the paragraphs and chapters which he
has composed independently. This is a statement concern
ing which there can be no dispute. It can easily be verified by
anyone who will take the trouble to study the books of Chron
icles in Kittel's edition, with the aid of the lists already mentioned.
As I said in my Comp., pp. 51 f. : "The Chronicler incorporates
his documentary sources entire, so far as practicable, not rewrit
ing them or working them over, but enriching them occasionally
with an added clause or inserted paragraph." I have now given
sufficient illustration of this (see above), and it is a fact well
known to those who have studied the books of Chronicles.46 So
when, for example, Kraetzschmar, in the Theol. Liter aturzeitung,
1897, col. 350, would make the concession, "dass der Chronist in
die Esra-Memoire starker eingegriffen hat, als man bisher im
Allgemeinen annahm" (cf. also Geissler, op. tit., pp. 11 f.), he is
proposing an explanation of the facts which is entirely inad
missible.

Then, as to the significance of the fact that the Ezra story
lies before us in the Chronicler's own language. There is only
one possible conclusion to be drawn from the abundant material
which we have to guide us, namely this, that the story is entirely his
own composition. Kraetzschmar, loc. tit., objects: "Es ware ein
Leichtes, nach des Verfassers Methode auch diese Kapitel [I Chron.
21 and II Chron. 28 f.] und noch viele andere auf alteren Quel-
len beruhende der Chronik als vom Chronisten frei erfunden und
ganzlich ungeschichtlich hinzustellen." Of course! That is the
only treatment possible to one who knows the Chronicler and has
any idea what a scientific method is. In the two chapters, II
Chron. 28 f., and all others like them, whatever the Chronicler
himself has written, in the way of either addition or alteration, is
"frei erfunden und ungeschichtlich." Since Kraetzschmar has
pointed out these three chapters by way of illustration, it may be
well to notice, in passing, what they really illustrate. In II
Chron. 28 f. there are no marks whatever of the Chronicler's
hand in any of the verses which contain material from II Kings.
But in the remainder of the two chapters, where he cuts loose

« Thus Benzinger, Comm., p. 113, decides that the story of Joash's repairing of the tem
ple, II Chron. 24:4-14, cannot come from the Chronicler, simply because the story told in
Kings has been thoroughly rewritten (and altogether changed in its contents, be it noted!).

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 243

from his source and composes his own narrative, the characteris
tic words and phrases appear. In I Chron. 21, where he has
merely made extensive superficial alteration, while retaining a
good deal of the material of his source, no traces of his lan
guage and style appear (and this, as I remarked above, is the
rule in such cases). This chapter, therefore, stands on an alto
gether different footing from those in the Ezra story. With the
narrative which does not appear to have been written by
the Chronicler we have at present nothing to do.

Further, the narrative which gives evidence of coming from
the Chronicler's hand cannot possibly be treated as substantially
representing an older source. It is not simply that we have no
guarantee that in introducing his own form of words he has not
altered the material contents of his source; we know with
certainty that in all such cases he has altered them fundamen
tally. The evidence of I and II Chron. is conclusive on this
point, as I have shown. Wherever he employs his own language,
the substance also is his; and if the traces of his presence are
numerous throughout any considerable piece of narrative, the
overwhelming probability is that he had no written source at all
for it.

Now, as a matter of fact, there is nothing whatever to make it
seem likely that the Chronicler had any source, written or oral,
for his story of Ezra. If we have any definite knowledge at all
of this "Ezra," we know that he was a man precisely like the
Chronicler himself: interested very noticeably in the Levites,
and especially the class of singers; deeply concerned at all times
with the details of the cult and with the ecclesiastical organiza
tion in Jerusalem ; armed with lists of names giving the geneal
ogy and official standing of those who constituted the true
church ; with his heart set on teaching and enforcing the neg
lected law of Moses throughout the land (see above, pp. 237 f.) ;
and — most important of all — zealous for the exclusion of the
"people of the land," the condemnation of mixed marriages, and
the preservation of the pure blood of Israel! There is not a gar
ment in all Ezra's wardrobe that does not fit the Chronicler
exactly. To suppose that the latter could have rewritten the
words, and twisted the ideas, of this kindred spirit, whose testi
mony was of sue1! immense importance to all his own special
interests, is out of the question; his intelligence was not of such

244 EZEA STUDIES

a low order as this; and we know, besides, that his habit was
directly opposed to any such proceeding, even when the material
was not exactly suited to his purpose.

One literary feature of the "Ezra document" is referred to over
and over again as conclusive proof of its genuineness, namely the
occasional appearance of the first person. "I was strengthened"
(Ezr. 7:38) ; "the princes drew near to me'"1 (9:1) ; "and we cast
lots" (Neh. 10:34). Such verses as these, it is said, must surely
come directly from Ezra himself; for anyone else would have
narrated in the third person — as is done in Ezr. 10 and Neh. 8,
for example. Thus Orelli, in the Tlieol. Liter aturblatt, 1898,
p. 292, asks how it is possible to deny the authentic memoir—
"ihr Vorhandensein bekundet deutlich genug noch das ungesuchte
Auftreten der ersten Person des Erzahlers." But surely no exten
sive acquaintance with ancient literature is needed in order to
recognize this very transparent and very common literary device.
Such touches as these, used often brilliantly, but hardly ever
consistently, are the Chronicler's regular stock-in-trade. If
we had no direct proof that narratives written in the first person
were known to him, we might hesitate a little to suppose that he
(with all his power of living in the scenes which he depicts)
had adopted this form of composition. But he actually had the
Nehemiah memoir in his hands! As for the change from the
first person to the third, and back again, which has so
thoroughly mystified our Old Testament scholars, it is not even
necessary to make it a special reproach to the Chronicler's care
lessness, since it occurs, in precisely the same way, in many other
ancient works of fiction. A good example is found in the fourth
chapter of Daniel. I quote from Sevan's Commentary, p. 87:
"One peculiarity which cannot fail to strike the reader, is that in
the middle of the narrative (4:25-30 [English trans., vss. 28-33])
the author, forgetting for the moment that he is writing in the
name of Nebuchadnezzar, speaks of the king in the third person,
but afterwards returns to the first (vss. 31-34)." Another
instance, equally instructive, is furnished by the same book. From
7:2 onward, to the end of the book, all of the narrative is given
in the first person, with the exception of 10:1, where the third
person is temporarily introduced. Are we to conclude that the
authentic memoirs of Daniel begin at 7:2, and that 10:1
has been "tiberarbeitet," or inserted by the redactor? Excellent

THE CHKONICLEK AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 245

illustration is given by the book of Enoch, in more than one
place. 12:3, for example, begins one of the "Ichstticke" (observe
vss. 1, 2). Shall we not suppose that one of the extracts from
the genuine personal memoir of Enoch begins at this point ? And,
again, there is the story of Tobit. Chaps. 1-3 (in both of the
principal Greek recensions) are composed in the first person; but
in chaps. 4-14 the narrator lapses into the third person. In the
seventh chap, of the Book of Jubilees, where the narrative is in the
third person, in vs. 26 it suddenly passes over, without any warn
ing, into the first person, and so continues to the end of the chap
ter (vss. 26-39) , after which the third person is resumed.47 A simi
lar thing happens in the ancient Protevangel of James, where a
part of the narrative, told by Joseph, suddenly adopts the first
person — simply because the writer's imagination happened to work
in that way. Excellent illustration from the Gentile narrative
literature is afforded (for instance) in the various recensions of
the Thousand and One Nights, in numerous places; also in the
Arabic story of Siil und Schumul, ed. Seybold, p. 79, lines 14 f . ;
p. 85, line 16. In all these cases, and many similar ones, and in
the Chronicler's change from "I" to "he" in telling Ezra's story,
the determining factor is the same: whether the narrator uses the
first person or the third depends simply on the mood of his
imagination; whether, as he sits down to write a fresh chapter, he
happens to identify himself with his hero, or not.48

It is a most significant fact, in this connection, that the very
verses and passages which contain "Ezra's" first person are often
those which are most noticeably filled with the telltale signs of
the Chronicler. Thus, the verses 7:27 — 8:1 which form the
beginning of the first "memoir section" show a remarkable aggre
gation of such marks, including some of the most characteristic
of all (see my Composition, pp. 16 f., 20 f.). Geissler, op. cit.,
p. 12, records his conclusion that the traces of the Chronicler's

47 There are many illustrations of such sudden change, back and forth, in the Jewish
apocalyptic literature. Thus, the " Life of Adam and Eve," § 33 (Kautzsch, Pstudepi-
graphen, 524, bottom) ; the cases noted in James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii, pp. Iv, xc, xcii,
xciv f., 124 ft'.; also these same Cambridge Texts and Studies, II, 2, pp. 146 f. ; further,
Fleck, Wissenschaftliche Reise (Leipzig, 1837), ii, 3, and the trans, by Bornemann, Zeitschr.
Wiss. TheoL, 1844, 3. Heft, pp. 20 f.

48 It cannot be insisted too often, that these writers were not trying to " forge docu
ments." The device of using occasionally the first person (like that of presenting fictitious
material in the form of cuicts and letters in full official dress; see above, p. 150) was always
adopted with a literary purpose, never chiefly in order to gain credence — though this
aim may possibly also have been present in some cases.

246 EZRA STUDIES

hand are as numerous in 7:28 — 9:15 (i. e., in the "Ichstuck"!)
as in chap. 10, and even more numerous than in Neh., chaps. 8-10.49
But if even these cherished "I" verses were composed by the
Chronicler, where then can we hope to find traces of Ezra's handi
work? Bertholet, Comm., p. xiv, in blissful ignorance of the true
state of the case, writes as follows: "Am leichtesten lasst sich
herausschalen, was Chr von jenen Memoiren in unverandertem
Wortlaute [!!] mitteilt. Es ist von den Esramemoiren: 7:27 —
8:34, 9:1—15." But can Bertholet point out, anywhere in these
sections, half a dozen consecutive verses which (after examining
Geissler's lists) he can confidently pronounce free of the suspicion
of being at least "iiberarbeitet"? On the contrary, the style is
everywhere and unmistakably that of the Chronicler. And the
whole argument for the genuineness of these "Ichstticke"- — the
supposed ipsissima verba — rests on the assumption that they
have not been rewritten.

To all this must be added, finally, that the literary qualities
of the narrative in Ezr. 8-10 and Neh. 8-10 are exactly those
of the independent narrative in I and II Chron. Reference has
already been made, in the preceding pages, to some important
illustrations of this point. Both the subject-matter and the man
ner of treating it are the Chronicler's own. The proportion of
the material is just the same as usual; the same which we have
remarked in the opening chapters of Ezr., for example; a great
deal of space given to ecclesiastical matters and machinery, and
the minimum of narrative. Levites are mustered, and temple
vessels numbered and weighed; feasts are celebrated, and reforms
instituted and accepted by "the congregation" on the basis of the
law. The Chronicler's omnipresent number twelve appears
here also; thus, in 8:3-14, 24, 35 (cf. 6:17), 10:25-43 (in the
original form; see the Greek of vss. 38 ff.), Neh. 9:4f., twelve
including Ezra ; see the Greek text at the beginning of vs. 6 ; and

49 In regard to the chapters in Neh., however, Geissler, like some of his predecessors,
is strangely blind. He writes (loc. cit.) : " Auffallig ist es, dasa die Gebete Esr. 9:6-15, Neh.
9:6-37 viel weniger Verwandschaft mit der Sprache von Ch verraten als die erzahlenden
Abschnitte." This shows how very slight his acquaintance with the Chronicler is. These
prayers, like all the many others which the Chronicler introduces into his history, consist
chiefly of a tissue of quotations from Deut., which was the favorite devotional book of the
Jewish community throughout the most of the Persian and Greek periods, until it was finally
supplanted by the Psalms. And it would be nothing short of a marvel if more than a very
few traces of his hand should appear, even in the unusually long prayer in Neh. Geissler
speaks of the section Neh. 8-10 as " considerably longer " (i. e., for the purposes of his linguis
tic investigation) than Ezr. 8-10. But it is really shorter, when the lists of names and the
prayers are left out of account.

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 247

probably also originally in Neh. 8:4, 7 (cf. Ezr. 2:2 = Neh.7:7).
The didactic utterance in Ezr. 8:226 is one of his especial favorites;
see II Chron. 13:18, 14:7, 11, 15:2(1), 17:9 f., 20:6, 17, 20,
24:20, 25:8f. The usual short speeches are uttered, e. g., Ezr.
8:28 f., 10:2 ff., 10 ft'., Neh. 8:9 f., 11. Names and dates are
given in the customary profusion. The style of the narration
is as lively as ever. Observe the following very characteristic
touches, which remind us at once of the flashes of life and local
color which appear all through the independent narratives of

I and II Chron. Ezr. 8:15: "And I gathered them together at
the river at Ahava, and there we encamped three days."
9:3: "I rent my garment, and pulled out the hair of my head
and of my beard" 10:6: "Then Ezra arose .... and went
into the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib." Vs. 9:
"And all the people sat in the broad place before the house of
God, trembling because of this matter, and because of the great
rain" (see also vs. 13). Neh. 8:1: "And all the people gathered
themselves together as one man into the broad place before the
water gate" (see also vs. 16). Vs. 5: "And Ezra opened the
book in the sight of all the people— /or lie tvas above all the
people" (cf. vs. 4, and II Chron. 6:13!), "and when he opened
it, all the people stood up " 9:4: The Levites " stood up upon
the stairs" Cf. the passages cited above, pp. 233 f.

The Chronicler's "creation of the character" of Ezra is not an
especially noteworthy achievement for him. His immediate pur
pose drew the indistinct outlines. To what !• wrote regarding
this matter in my Comp., pp. 57-62, the following may be added,
as to considerations which must have chiefly influenced him in
fashioning the story. It was necessary that the sin of inter
marriage with foreigners — the thing which the Samaritans had
done — should be severely scored. There was only one natural
way to do this, namely, by telling how the returned exiles once
fell into this evil way (in their partial innocence!),50 were rebuked
by one who had authority; and how they then gave solemn
promise, in public assembly, to do so no more. Given the
obvious necessities of the Chronicler's aim, and the creation
of "Ezra the scribe" just as he appears, and the general out-

5° As the narrative everywhere says or implies, the people had sinned grievously in
neglecting the law; and j t they had the partial excuse that its use had for a longtime and
of necessity been suspended, and there had been no " expert scribe " to teach it to them (cf.

II Chron. 15:3!).

248 EZRA STUDIES

line of the events in which he figured, follow as matters of course.
Compare also what is said below, regarding the character of
Nehemiah.

4. The Chronicler's Narrative of Nehemiah

What has just been said in regard to the story of Ezra can
also be said, mutatis mutandis, of the considerable addition to the
Nehemiah memoir which the Chronicler has made; namely, Neh.
7: 1-69 ;51 11:1 — 13:31. These two passages, when joined together
by the removal of the interpolated section 7:70 — 10:40, form a
solid block of the Chronicler's own very characteristic material,
self-consistent, perfectly comprehensible in every part, and in the
same order and extent which he himself originally gave it;
excepting, of course, that the text has suffered some corruption.
It is all the unaided work of his hand, and there is no part of it
concerning which there can be any reasonable doubt when the
evidence has been examined. I presented the argument briefly
in my Comp., pp. 39-49, and the force of what was said there is
much increased by the demonstration of the Chronicler's aims and
characteristics which I have given here.

11:1 is the immediate and necessary continuation of 7:69.
Just as soon as the statistics are finished, and the narrative is
resumed in 12:27 ff., it is the Chronicler, unmistakably, who is
the narrator. The Nehemiah who told his story in chaps. 1—6
was a man of affairs; truly religious, but giving no sign of any
interest in the ritual of the temple. But the Nehemiah of 12:27—
13:31 is simply Ezra (i. e., the Chronicler) under another name.
Subject-matter, manner, language, and style, all bear the same
witness in every paragraph ; and here also, as in Ezra, it is pre
cisely the "Ichstucke" which are most characteristically and
certainly the composition of the Chronicler. The current "analy
sis" of 12:27-43, which saves for Nehemiah every verse which
happens to contain "I" or "me," and pronounces all the others
"edited," is a curious specimen of literary criticism. The fact is,
there is no excuse for analysis here anywhere. In vss. 37 ff. we
see once more the Chronicler's ever-present interest in the topog
raphy and buildings of Jerusalem (above, p. 216). In chap. 13
the main features of those orthodox institutions in the interest of
which the whole history Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. was composed are

51 As I have already said (p. 226), I suspect the passage 6:16-19. It seems to me safer,
however, to leave it with the Neh. memoir for the present. 7 : 69 is 7 : 68 in Baer's edition.

THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 249

brought forward for the last time. "Ezra" had recently given
them his powerful support, and now Nehemiah is made to do the
same — often in a remarkably similar form of words; adopting, in
fact, the peculiar language of the Chronicler. There is the zeal
for the pure blood of Israel, vss. 1—4, 23—28 ; the care for the
perquisites of the temple officials, vss. 5-13, 30 (cf. especially
10:35—40!); the rebuke of those who break the sabbath, and
especially of those of the "people of the land" who bring wares
to Jerusalem for sale on that day, vss. 15-22 (cf . especially 10 : 32 ! ) ;
and, most striking of all, the curious veiled allusion to the Samar
itan schism, in vss. 28 f. (see above, p. 235, arid Comp., p. 48). 52
The circumstantial manner of the narrative is the one with which
we are familiar; see for instance 12:31 ff. (where the Chronicler's
personal leaning toward Ezra appears in vs. 36!), 13:8, 21, 24 f.
In all this, again, as in the story of Ezra, there is nothing what
ever to indicate a written source.

The lists in chaps. 7, 11, and 12 were very important, from
the Chronicler's standpoint. This was his final presentation of
the historical antecedents of the Jewish official church, bringing
down "the true Israel" almost to his own day. In 7: 5 Nehemiah
is made to "gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the
people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy." The prin
cipal result of this gathering was the finding of the "book of
the genealogy of those who came up," which is evidently repre
sented as containing not only 7:6-69, but also 11:1-36. Further
fruit of this effort on the part of Nehemiah is given in 12: 1—26.
As has already been remarked, the Chronicler believed Nehemiah
to have flourished under Artaxerxes II; he therefore would natu
rally have supposed him to survive until the time of Jaddua
(12:11) and Darius III (12:22), and could easily represent him
as the compiler of all these lists in chap. 12. 53

In his list of those who helped to build the wall, in the time of
Nehemiah, Neh. 3:1-32, the Chronicler presents the usual names;
and doubtless rejoiced the hearts of many of his contemporaries.
For specific marks of his hand here, see Comp., pp. 37 f.

52 It may be that the Chronicler believed Nehemiah to have been living at the time of the
rupture with the Samaritans, but that he did not quite dare to connect him definitely with
the event. Compare what is said, below, in regard to his chronology of Nehemiah.

53 Hence in II Mace. 2:13 Nehemiah is identified ivith the Chronicler, or at all events is
declared to have been the one who collected the documents embodied in the compilation
Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. ! As for tue "book of chronicles " referred to in 12:23, we have no reason
to suppose that it was anything more than one of this writer's fictitious sources, like those
which have received mention above.

250 EZRA STUDIES

The "great list," 7:6-69, had already been given in full by
the Chronicler, in Ezr. 2: 1-67. He repeats it here, partly
because of its fundamental importance, and partly because
it formed an integral part of the material the rest of which he
wished to present in 11:1 — 12:26. It is entirely his own com
position, and (like everything else of his) is put together with
insufficient care. Hence the great difficulties it has always pre
sented to those who have tried to take it seriously. See, for example,
Bertholet, Comm., p. 8, where it is shown, on the best of modern
authority, (1) that this cannot possibly be a genuine list of
returning exiles; and (2) that it cannot ever have been intended
as any other kind of a list!54

The Nehemiah of chaps. 7 and 11-13, as already observed, is
in nearly all respects the same character as the Ezra of Ezr. 8-10,
Neh. 8-10. One would expect that a writer of the Chronicler's
ability would at least have given the latter hero some pronounced
characteristics (other than a mighty fondness for Levites and
singers), and that he would have studied Nehemiah's memoir for
the very purpose of recognizing salient traits which he could the*n
reproduce in his own added chapters. But the only thing of this
kind which he has done is to introduce into chap. 13 several of
the brief interjected prayers (vss. 14, 22, 29, 31) which are so
striking a feature of the genuine narrative (3:36, 37, 5:19,
6:14).

In general, it is evident that the Chronicler became an editor
more from necessity than from choice. By taste and gift he was
a novelist. He would doubtless have preferred to give freer rein
to his imagination in composing the story of the Jews and their

51 As has already been observed, the names in these manifold tables of the Chronicler
are largely or wholly those of his orthodox contemporaries. It would be interesting to know
what lay beneath the express degradation of certain families, 7 : 61 f ., 63 ff. It may be
worth while to recall the fact that Delaiah (vs. 62) is given in the Elephantine papyrus as
the name of Sanaballat's elder son ; though the coincidence maybe only accidental. Regarding
the number of "the whole congregation," 42, 360 (so in all the texts, and therefore pretty
certainly original), the conjecture may be hazarded that it is the result of one of the Chron
icler's computations. Josephus, Antt., x, 8, 5, reckons 3,513 years from the creation down to
the destruction of the temple. If we suppose the Chronicler to have reckoned the number
at 3,530, his total number of the new congregation would have included twelve men for
each year of that period. To show the possibility of some such computation: creation to
Exodus = 2,666 years, according to MT; Exodus to building of temple = 440 years, in the
Greek version of I Kings 6:1; 36 = remaining years of Solomon (I Chron. 3:2, 9:30);
258 = synchronistic years of the two kingdoms, in MT ; fall of Samaria to destruction of
temple = 134 years, in MT. Total, 3,534 years. After deducting the four years which are
counted twice, where these five periods overlap, final result, 3,530 years. Regarding the
Chronicler's infatuation for the number twelve, see above, pp. 222, 246.

THE CHEONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS NARRATOR 251

antecedents. But he was now writing not to interest, but with
an apologetic purpose. The support of the recognized history was
indispensable; outside this, it was important that he should con
fine himself to what was necessary. In the pre-exilic period, he
could not well avoid incorporating at least a part of the well-known
history of every king of Judah. In the post-exilic period, he
certainly seems to have made the most of the two documents which
were available. And his view of the history ultimately
gained general acceptance, though it seems to have made its
way slowly. The evidence that he was an earnest and devout man
is abundant and striking. No one ever believed more sincerely
than he that human prosperity rests only upon the fear of God;
and from time to time, throughout his history, he puts into the
mouth of his characters some expression of his own conviction,
that if the people, all through the land, could be thoroughly
instructed in the divine truth, all their serious troubles would
be over.

VIII
THE EZKA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE

Any attempt to "restore the original form" of an ancient
document, by rearranging its chapters, paragraphs, or verses,
ought to be met with suspicion and subjected to the severest
criticism. In the great majority of cases, either the traditional
form can fairly claim to be the original one, in spite of seeming
contradictions, or else the evidence enabling us to make a sure
restoration is not to be had. Many of the grave inconsistencies
which trouble us did not disturb the author himself, simply
because he understood, better than we do, what he meant to say.
Even where it is a demonstrated fact that the text which lies
before us has suffered from transposition of some sort, it is
not enough for the would-be restorer to rearrange the passages
logically, or symmetrically, or so as to bring the whole into per
fect accord with some plausible theory. Very many ancient
writers did not bind themselves to observe logical sequence; did
not care especially for symmetry ; and would have been greatly
astonished, or angered, or amused, if they could have heard
attributed to them the views which they are now believed to
have held. It is not our concern, after all, to find the best pos
sible arrangement of the material — that would often be very
easy; our business is to find the arrangement actually made by
the author — and that is usually very difficult. Nevertheless,
perfectly convincing reconstructions by ti'ansposition, based solely
on internal evidence, are sometimes possible; the history of
literature contains a good many instances. In each case it is
simply a question of whether the evidence can satisfy the rigor
ous tests which the nature of the problem demands. The pro
posed new arrangement must really remove the difficulties which
it is designed to overcome; it must create no new difficulties; it
must enable us to explain how the disorder was brought about;
it must give clear evidence of being the order originally planned
by the author himself, and must harmonize with all that we cer
tainly know regarding his purposes and methods; and it must be
recognized as the only order which can meet these, requirements.

252

THE EZEA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 253

If any single link in the chain of evidence is missing, or defective,
the critical theory may be tolerated, but it cannot be accepted as
demonstrated. I am confident that it will be agreed that the
demonstration given in the following pages is a conclusive one,
and that this is a case in which the original order of a disarranged
narrative has been restored with certainty.

In all the narrative part of the Old Testament, there is no
where else such an appearance of chaos as in the story of Ezra,
as it stands in our received text. Part of it is found in one
place, and part in another. Moreover, the two principal frag
ments, thus separated from each other, are incoherent in them
selves. No one of our modern interpreters has succeeded in
obtaining a continuous and comprehensible account of events
from either Ezr. 7-10 or Neh. 8-10. The sequence of the sev
eral scenes is plainly out of order; the chronology is all wrong;
and the bearing of the successive (?) incidents upon one another
is far from clear. Ezra makes his journey to Judea in order to
teach and administer the law (Ezr. 7: 10, 14, 25 f.), but it is not
until thirteen years (!) after his arrival that he first presents it
to the people (Neh. 8: 2, cf. 1: 1 and Ezr. 7:8). In Ezr. 9, the
people are rebuked for a grievous sin against the law, the manner
of the rebuke implying obviously that the law was already known
to them; 'and their representative, indeed, after confessing the
transgression, proposes to make reparation "according to the.
law" (10: 3). * But in the narrative as it now lies before us, the

iThat the public reading of the law had already taken place, is necessarily implied
not only in 10:3, but also, and only a little less obviously, in 9:1, 4, 10 ft'., 14. The "com
mandments of God," which the people had "forsaken" and "broken," were the command
ments of the written law; they could not possibly have been anything else. Those who
" trembled at the words of the God of Israel " (9 : 4, 10 : 3) were those who were dismayed at
the transgression of statutes which were definitely known to them; the con
text in each case makes this certain. Bertholet, in his remarks on Ezr. 9:1 (Comm.,
pp. 38 f.), declares that Ezra's reform in the matter of foreign wives was " vorbereitet durch
die Gedankenwelt des Deuteronomiums, eines Hesekiel, Maleachi und Tritojesaja," but
this is a very lame explanation. It is sufficiently obvious that when Ezra tore his clothes,
pulled out some of the hair of his head and beard, and spoke and prayed in such passionate
language of the "great guilt" of the people, he was not reproaching them for a sin against
a Gedankenwelt! In order to argue in this way, it is necessary that one should first shut
his eyes. It is not only said, in so many words (10:3), that the people already know the
Torah, the fact is also certainly implied in the account of the way in which they received
Ezra's rebuke (10: 2 ft'., 12ft'.). In Neh. 8:9, 13 it is made plain that the commandments of
the law were quite new to all, princes, priests, and common people alike, when Ezra first
read them. In Ezra 9 and 10, on the contrary, the people accept as indisputable the charge
that they have grievously transgressed; they themselves know what command
ments have been broken; and Ezra in his prayer for them actually quotes (loosely) the
words of Lev. 18 : 24 f ., 27 Deut. 7 : 3, 23 : 7, 11 : 8. This was a part of that law which he had
come to teach — and had already taught. What is more, it was not Ezra who dis
covered this "trespass of the exiles," it was certain of their own

254 EZRA STUDIES

law had not yet been made known! Furthermore, although this
evil of mixed marriages is discovered and corrected soon after
Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem, the time when the people formally
repent of it, in solemn assembly, and vow never to do so again,
is thirteen years later (Neh. 9:1).

The manifest incongruity between Neh. 8 and the two follow
ing chapters has also been the subject of much comment. There
is nothing in the narrative as it now stands which can account
for the sackcloth and ashes in 9: 1. Or it would be a more cor
rect statement of the case to say, that the reason for the mourn
ing is given, but is incomprehensible in the present
form of the story. Kosters, Wiederherstellung Israels (1895),
pp. 85 f., remarks that the occasion of the penitential ceremony
in chap. 9 was, plainly, the separation of Israel from foreigners.
This is indeed made evident by the two passages, 9 : 2 and
10:29-31; the former of which must necessarily be regarded,
because of its position, as giving the principal reason for the
assembly, while the other, for a like reason, must be held to give
the primary feature of the solemn covenant.2 Wellhausen, Js?*a-
elitische und jiidische Geschichte\ p. 135, n. 2, feels the same
difficulty as Kosters, and says: "Wunderlich an seiner Stelle ist
der erste Satz von Neh. 9:2." But Wellhausen certainly would
not wish to suggest that the first clause of this verse is not in its
right place in the chapter. The trouble is, of course, that
the preceding narration has not prepared the way for such a
scene as this. That is, just as Ezr. 9 must have been preceded
by an account of the public reading of the law, so Neh. 9 must
have followed directly after a chapter which told of the separation
from foreign wives.

And just here the fact also stares us in the face that the story
of Ezra's reform is not suitably concluded by Ezr. 10:44, even
when the verse is restored to its original form (see below). We

leaders. 9:1 says: "When these things were finished, the chief men drew near to me,
saying: The people of Israel .... have not separated themselves from the peoples of the
land," etc., and these princes thereupon proceed to quote from the laws in question (vss. 1,2)!
This is either the sequel of Neh. 8, or else it is inexplicable.

2 No neater demonstration of this exegetical necessity could be asked than is furnished
by the " Neapolitan Synopsis" of the Old Testament, published by Lagarde in his Septua-
ginta Studien II. The following is its summary of that part of the Ezra narrative which is
contained in the book of Nehemiah (ibid., p. 84, 11. 27-34) : . . . . *ai 6 juev 'E<r<5pas dvayiv<a<TKui>
Sie'areAAev eTnarrinj) nvpiov, 6 6e Aabs arvv^Kfv kv rrj dvayvucrei . xal eTrot'rjcre TO Tra.<r\a. . icai ev Tta

e/366juto /arji't eTrotTjae TTJV I'Tjcrreiav KOU TTJV <TKr)voinr)yiav (is yeypanrat. *E<rSpas Se eiopa/cu)? em-

ju.i-yei(ras yuvai/cas a£u>Ti'ovs TOIS 'E/Spat'ois, Treyflrjcras, eTreiere Travras eTra.yyei\a(T0a.i. </>vAaTTeii' TOV VQ/J.OV
TOU Oeov, /cat e£e/3aAe ras yv^at/cas (is Trapo.vofj.ov ya.fj.ov. KO.\ tafj-oaav $vAa£ai TOV VO/JLOV .

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 255

should expect to see at least some promise for the future, some
indication that the misery, the crime against human nature,
wrought on this occasion made such an impression on the people
that they took measures to prevent the recurrence of anything of
the sort. The subject could not have been dismissed with this
one verse following the list of names. No modern commentator
has doubted that the original narrative continuation has been
accidentally cut off, or displaced, in some way.

It is abundantly evident, from all this, that the trouble with
the story of Ezra lies simply in the transposition of a passage,
namely the passage which contains the account of the reading of
the law. Aside from the internal evidence, we have also external
evidence that transposition of some sort took place, for in the old
Greek version (I Esdras) and Josephus the four Ezra chapters
(7-10) are immediately followed by the three Nehemiah
chapters (8-10).3 The sequence of the chapters there is an
absolutely impossible one, to be sure, yet this witness to the tradi
tion that all seven of them originally formed one continu
ous piece is very valuable.

The obvious way of removing all the difficulties thus far men
tioned is, as I showed in my Composition, pp. 29-34, to restore
Neh. 8 to its original place between Ezr. 8 and 9. The key to
the solution of the whole problem lies in the neglected and mis
understood passage Neh. 7:70-73 (69-72). If it had not been
for these four verses, the disarrangement of the Ezra story would
never have taken place; in consequence, the restoration of the
true order must begin with them. As soon as the peculiarities of
their form and surroundings are observed, it becomes evident that
they furnish the desired explanation of the whole process. All
modern interpreters have regarded Neh. 7: 70—73 as a mere variant
of Ezr. 2:68-70. Some ancient interpreter conceived the same
idea, and wrought great mischief as a result. As a matter of fact,
the two passages differ considerably in their contents, and were
written for very different occasions. Why the remarkable dis
agreement between them, and who has ever explained it?
There is a third passage, I Chron. 29:6-8, which resembles them
almost as closely as they resemble each other, and all three
simply illustrate the Chronicler's well-known habit of repeating
himself.

3 See above, pp. 31 f .

256 EZRA STUDIES

We have already seen that the narrative of the first public
reading of the law, which is the immediate sequel of the
four verses mentioned, must have preceded Ezr. 9. That being
the case, it is startling to observe that the four verses are the
natural continuation of Ezr. 8. That is, in fact, the only
context which suits them. Ezr. 8:33-36 had just recounted how
the gifts of gold and silver brought from Babylon were delivered
in Jerusalem, where they were to be used "for the service of the
house of God" (7:19, 8:25) ; how the sacrifices were then offered
in the temple; and how, finally, the king's satraps and governors
in the Transflumen gave their aid to the cult in Jerusalem (8:36).
Then would follow, almost of necessity, some statement regarding
the aid which the leaders of the Jews themselves gave to the
service of the temple (TOtfb^b , Neh. 7:70). This is precisely
what we have in Neh. 7:70—72. Furthermore, the statement that
"the priests, the Levites, and the people," and so on, those who
had come from Babylonia, settled down "in their cities" (vs. 73a)
is just as indispensable at the end of the story of the expedition
under Ezra (Ezr. 8) as it was in the case of that under Zerubbabel
and Jeshua (Ezr. 2). To sum the matter up, the passage Neh.
7:70-73 is necessary as the sequel of Ezr. 8; while it is quite out
of place in the story of Nehemiah, and inexplicable as a variant
of Ezr. 2:68-70.

It is evident, then, that if we should cut out the whole passage
Neh. 7:70(69) — 8:18 from its present context, and put it between
Ezr. 8 and 9, every difficulty resulting from the present order of
chapters and sections in the Ezra story would disappear. In
addition to the points already mentioned, the sore need of a sequel
to Ezr. 10:44 and of a suitable context for Neh. 9: If. would
also be supplied, the one chapter being followed directly by the
other. The probability that we have found at last the passage
whose transposition brought about all the mischief in Ezra-
Nehemiah becomes at once very strong.

But it is first necessary to show why and how the transfer was
made, and how it happened that a part of the Ezra story was put
into the book of Nehemiah. The mistaken arrangement was made
by a copyist; and as already observed, the resemblance of the
passage Neh. 7:70-73 to its counterpart Ezr. 2:68-70 was the
cause of the error. The two passages would inevitably seem to a
copyist to be one and the same, with their generally identical

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 257

phraseology;4 and what is more, each is immediately con
tinued by the words: "And when the seventh month was
come, the children of Israel being in their cities, the people
assembled." The man who wrought the mischief, therefore, hold
ing in his memory the continuation of the "great list" Ezr.
2:2-67 by verses 68-70 and 3:1, attached the similar passage, with
its sequel, the story of the reading of the law, to the end of the
same list in Nehemiah. He had just copied, we may suppose, the
book of Ezra as far as 8:36, and then saw in the next following
section what he believed to be the true sequel of the list in Neh. 7.
He accordingly transferred the section, which of course included
the story of the reading of the law (cf. Neh. 7:736 and the begin
ning of 8:1 with Ezr. 3:1!), to the book of Nehemiah.5

This transfer was an easy one, requiring hardly any thought
at all; but when it was once made it was certain to be permanent,
at least so far as the verses 70-73a were concerned, since they
would henceforth always be regarded as a mere repetition of
Ezr. 2:68—70. Moreover, the transfer — and this was possibly
not foreseen at first by the one who made it — rendered a sec
ond transposition absolutely necessary. The chapters
containing the story of the people's repentance, and of the
covenant which they made, alluded in more than one place to
the public reading of the law by Ezra (Neh. 9: 3, 10: 29 f., 35,
37), and it was therefore obviously and totally impossible that
they should precede Neh. 8. The only thing that could be
done with them was to put them immediately after the last-
named chapter. There can be little doubt that this was done by
the same copyist-editor who had begun the rearrangement — for
he cannot have failed to see the necessity of this second step;

* The mention of the "Tirshatha" in Neh. 7:70 would also immediately suggest the
occurrence of the word just before, in vs. 65 (Ezr. 2:63) !

5 Such transpositions, more or less consciously made, are familiar enough in the history
of the manuscript transmission of ancient documents. It sometimes happens, indeed, that
transcribers perform feats which might well have been deemed impossible. For example,
in the manuscripts of the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, immediately after John 8 : 2 stands
a colophon, '"End of the Gospel of John," etc.! The explanation is presumably this, that in
some old manuscripts of the Gospels the pericope de adultera, 7:53 — 8:11, was placed at the
end as a sort of appendix, and that in at least one such codex the transposed section con
tained merely 8:3-11 (cf. the transposition of Neh. 7:73 ff., instead of vss. 70 ff., in I Esdras!).
Then, in the Syriac manuscript from which the text of the Lectionary was derived, this
appendix, 8:3-11, was again transferred, this time being put back into what was
naturally supposed to be its original place (cf. I Esdras). But along with it was
transferred the colophon of the Gospel, which stood just before it! (See the
Palest. Syr. Lect., ed. Lc\vis and Gibson, p. xv, where an explanation similar to this is
given on the authority of Rondel Harris.) This is by no means an isolated instance of the
stupidity of a copyist.

258 EZKA STUDIES

but whether by him or by another, it must in any case have been
accomplished very soon. Thus it came about that the "great
list" in Neh. 7 received this most incongruous sequel: the
account of the gifts to the temple on Ezra's arrival (Neh. 7: 70-
73a) ; the reading of the law (736 — 8: 18) ; and the two chapters
(Neh. 9f.) which had originally formed the end of the Ezra
story, immediately preceding the first chapter of Nehemiah.
Ezr. 9 and 10 were of course left where they were, as the account
of the work performed by Ezra in his "first period." Thus the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah received their present shape,6 by a
process each step of which is perfectly comprehensible. The
first step was almost mechanical, and might even have been
purely accidental; the rest then followed inevitably.

The date of this transposition of chapters was probably near
the end of the third century B. c., at about the time when the
Story of the Three Youths was interpolated in the first chapter
of Ezra, as already described. For some reason which we can
only conjecture,7 the rearranged edition completely supplanted
the original one. Not long after, some one made the attempt to
restore the Ezra chapters to the book of Ezra; it was a matter of
tradition that they had once formed a part of it. The best that
he could do, naturally, was to chop out Neh. 7:73 (!) — 10:40,
and put it between Ezr. 10:44 and Neh. 1:1; and this did not
by any means remove the existing difficulties. His version
gained such acceptance, however, that it was the standard recen
sion at least from the early part of the second century B. c. until
the time of the historian Josephus (cf. what I have said in regard
to "Edition B" in the chapter dealing with the Nature and
Origin of First Esdras). Even before the time of this last
transposition, the interpolation of Nehemiah's name into the three
ill-gotten chapters of his book had begun to take place, judging
from I Esdr. 5:40 (= Ezr. 2:63), Nee/x 015(1) teal 'AT0aptas.*

6 The mixing of the Ezra story with that of Nehemiah naturally brought about the
interpolation of Nehemiah's name in certain passages where "the governor" was men
tioned. On the form and history of these interpolations see below, the notes on Neh. 8:9
and (especially) 10:2.

" As I have remarked already in several places, the evidence seems to show that the
Chronicler's book was little known during the first generation or two after it was written
(neither Bar Sira nor the author of Enoch 89: 72 had ever hf-ard of Ezra, for example). It
may have been a good while before it was copied at all; then when its real vogue began, the
copies were made from the rearranged and interpolated edition, which was the popular one.

8 This means, apparently, that in some text older than Edition B the name "Nehe
miah " had been interpolated in Neh. 7 :65, and then had been carried over thence, through
carelessness, into Ezr. 2: 63.

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 259

This interpolation was afterward made in other places (already
mentioned) in "Edition A," and their presence was doubtless
the chief reason why this latter recension was ultimately made
authoritative.

I print here the story of Ezra in its original sequence, as the
best possible demonstration of the correctness of the conclusions
just stated. How does one who is attempting to restore a dis
sected map or picture know when he has succeeded? The story
as here arranged shows perfect order instead of complete chaos,
the obvious design of the narrator carried out in a harmonious
way from beginning to end. It is the one arrangement to which
logic compels, a dozen different lines of argument all pointing in
the same direction. And it is the only arrangement which can
meet all the tests named at the beginning of this chapter. The
comparison of the dissected picture is an unjust one in two
respects, since (1) it suggests numerous pieces, and (2) he who
restores the picture has no need to explain the disorder in which
he found it. In the case of this narrative, the shifting of one
single block, Neh. 7: 70 — 8: 18, brings back the original order
of the Ezra chapters — a solution whose simplicity puts it in
strong contrast with every other one which has been proposed;
and the explanation of the displacement, a thing not to be
dispensed with, is provided.9

Ezra goes to Jerusalem in order to bring back the people to
the neglected and forgotten law of their God, i. e. the Penta
teuch. He is sent by the king, who gives him full power, and
he and his companions carry contributions for the improvement
of the temple service. Arriving in Jerusalem, they present their
gifts, and the governor and the leaders of the people also contri
bute liberally. Two months later, at the beginning of the sacred

9 Professor H. P. Smith, in his Old Testament History, adopts my restoration of the
Ezra story, but proposes to modify it in one respect, suggesting (p. 393, n. 1) that the list in
Neh. 7 also belonged originally to the story of Ezra, Ezr. 8:36 having been continued by
Neh. 7: 5 ft'. What I have written in the preceding pages is perhaps a sufficient answer to
such a suggestion, but I will add: (1) There would then be no plausible way of explaining
the presence of the chapters in the book of Nehemiah. (2) The passage 7 : 70-73 would be
deprived of any natural connection; and it would look like a mere variant (a very corrupt
variant !) of Ezr. 2 : 68-70. (3) In Ezr. 8 there is no obvious reason for a census ; in Neh. 7,
on the contrary, vs. 4 prepares for this very thing, and chap. 11 continues it without a
break! The Chronicler represents Nehemiah as interested in the census of the com
munity (see also above, pp. 249 f.), and the list there serves an important purpose; while in
the Ezra story it could serve no purpose at all. These considerations are quite decisive.

Another Old Testament scholar, Professor H. G. Mitchell, accepts some of my conclu
sions while rejecting others (Journal of Bib. Lit., 1903, pp. 92ft".). I think it will be seen
that every objection which he raises is fully met in the present chapter. His own hypothe
sis seems to me to leave both the stories of Ezra and Nehemiah in a hopeless muddle.

260 EZRA STUDIES

"seventh month," Ezra prepares his great assembly at Jerusalem,
and reads the law of Moses in public. The first fruit of the
reading (as is fitting) was joy and good cheer, for the people
found themselves summoned to undertake at once the celebra-
bration of a festival which had been lost to sight. But results
of a less pleasant nature were bound to come soon. The restor
ing of a neglected law means reform. The princes had heard,
with dismay, the statute forbidding intermarriage with the
heathen, and now come to Ezra to confess the sin of the people.
He charges the guilty ones with their crime; they confess, and
agree that "the law must be followed" (rplpfi nto"' , Ezr.
10:3). A thorough work of investigation, occupying three
months, is instituted, and all the foreign wives and the children
born of them are sent away. Then, after a breathing spell of
about three weeks, all the people assemble once more at Jeru
salem, and the solemn covenant, which crowns the work of Ezra,
is drawn up and signed.

Here is a clear and consistent story, the only clear and con
sistent story dealing with Ezra that has ever been told by any
one. That it is the story actually told, in the first place, by the
Chronicler himself, is still further attested by the chronology.
The dates given in such profusion throughout the narrative are
now all intelligible for the first time. No other single
fact could give so striking a vindication as this of the correctness
of my restoration, and for this reason I have printed the suc
cessive dates in the margin, so that their mutual relation can be
seen at a glance. The "unity of time" in the story also deserves
to be emphasized. The initial date of Ezra's undertaking, accord
ing to 7:9, was the first day of the first month,10 in the seventh
year of Artaxerxes;11 that is, April I,12 398 B. c. The whole series
of events of which he is the hero13 occupies just one year and
twenty-four days (cf. Neh. 9:1 with Ezr. 10:17). The mul
tiple of twelve is not accidental; notice also how in Ezr. 8:31
the date of the actual beginning of the journey is given as the
twelfth day of the first month. Compare the many similar

10 Observe that the Chronicler's date for the beginning of the former expedition,
under Cyrus, was also the first day of the first month (above, pp. 131, 134).

11 Artaxerxes II Mnemon ; see above, pp. 38 f ., 170, 239.

12 Merely for the sake of convenience, I have used this inaccurate terminology, calling
the first month "April," and so on throughout the year.

is Of course it is to be remembered that the Chronicler brings him in again for a
moment, in very characteristic fashion, in the story of Nehemiah, a dozen years later
(12:36).

THE EZRA STOKY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 261

cases, in all parts of the Chronicler's narrative, which have
already been mentioned.

It is perhaps hardly necessary to reiterate, that in all this
there is not a word said about the introduction of a new
law. What is represented is everywhere and consistently this,
that the old law, of whose existence the leaders of the people
well knew, and whose main prescriptions they were of course fol
lowing all the time, but which had been sadly neglected, so
that many of its commands were quite forgotten, was now re
instated in its completeness by one who had authority.
This, as I have already shown, is one of the Chronicler's favorite
ideas, to which he returns again and again, in his history of
Israel. See above, especially pp. 237, 247. More than this, the
picture of a revival of the law immediately followed, as a result,
by a formal covenant entered into by the people, is one which
he delights to paint. According to his narrative in II Chron.
14:4, the Judean king Asa restored the law. It had been
neglected then in the same manner as in the time of Ezra; the
people had no opportunity to read it, and there was no "expert
scribe" to teach it to them. As one of the prophets of Asa's
kingdom said (15: 3) : "Now for a long season Israel hath been
without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without
law." After the law had been restored, the people gathered
together at Jerusalem (vss. 10-13) and entered into a covenant
"to seek the Lord, .... and that whosoever would not seek
the Lord should be put to death." So also in 34:32, after
repeating from Kings the story of Josiah's public reading of the
law, and of the covenant which the king made, the Chronicler
adds: "And he caused all who were found in Jerusalem and
Benjamin to stand to it. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem did
according to the covenant of God." In like manner after the
first reading of the law by Ezra, when the need of the first great
reform is seen, one of the leaders of the people says (Ezr. 10: 3) :
"Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God, to put
away all such wives," etc. And then finally, after still another
public reading and expounding of the law (Neh. 9: 3), the peo
ple are represented as signing and sealing a more comprehensive
covenant, embracing those things which were commonly neg
lected, and yet (m the mind of the Chronicler) were of the
greatest importance. There is never a hint of such a thing as

262 EZEA STUDIES

accepting a new law, only the familiar idea of renewing an old
one which had been neglected.14

Before leaving the story of Ezra, the question deserves to be
raised once more whether some valuable material, however small,
for the history of the Persian period may not be found in it. It
is the Chronicler's own tale, his composition from beginning to
end, that is certain ; but even so, every witness in its favor must be
given a fair hearing. I have already shown with sufficient detail
of proof, that the whole Ezra narrative is motived history, com
posed with the very same purpose which produced the similar
narratives written to supplement the accounts of Samuel and
Kings; and that there is not a particle of evidence that any other
story of Ezra, written or oral, lies behind this one (see above,
pp. 238, 242 f.). The only question that can arise is this,
whether the Chronicler has not used events or names of persons
which can legitimately be received by us as historical material.
But the answer to this question, the only answer justified
by the evidence, is an unqualified negative. I have remarked
elsewhere upon the fact that the Chronicler, in all this tale,
recounts no events at all except such as serve his apologetic
purpose. What is told of the Ezra expedition is just that which
was narrated of the former "return" in Ezr. 1-3: a royal edict;
names of the participants; enumeration of vessels for the temple;
special mention (for the purpose of praise or blame) of certain men
or groups of men; the fact that the several classes duly occupied
"their" cities. So also in the next episode: the same magnificent
liberality, and told in the same words, in Neh. 7:70-72 as in
Ezr. 2:68 f. and I Chron. 29:6 ff. The account of the reading of
the law is merely repeated from the Chronicler's story of the dedi
cation of Solomon's temple, in II Chron. 5-7; it is the very same
scene, with the same principal incidents (for details, see my Com}).,
p. 59) . All the ideas found in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah, and

UBertholet, Comm., pp. 75 f., argues that a chapter must have fallen out after Neh. 9,
namely a chapter telling how the people formally pledged themselves to accept "the new
law;" Neh. 10, he insists, cannot be the continuation of chap. 9, because in the covenant
which it contains nothing is said about adopting any new code! This is perfectly typical
of the whole treatment of the Ezra narrative which prevails at present; the rule every
where followed appears to be this: Let the documents go, but keep the present " critical"
theory ; never this rule : Let the theory go, but hold to the documents. No part of the Old
Testament, in fact, has brought forth so much perverse exegesis as this tale of Ezra. It
will doubtless long be customary to cite it as the account of "the introduction of the
Priest-code," though this view of it has not the least foundation of any sort. The narrative
says nothing of the kind; the laws quoted and accepted in the story do not belong, as a
rule, to the priestly legislation (read Bertholet, lac. cit., p. 76 !) ; and finally, as I have said else
where (pp. 196 f.), there is neither evidence nor likelihood that any "Priest-code" ever
existed.

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 263

most of the phrases in which they are couched, are commonplaces
in the Chronicler's history. The story of the reform in the matter
of foreign wives differs only in the nature of the case from the
stories told by him of the reforms of Asa, Jehoshaphat, and
Hezekiah. The mariner of the narrative is just the same, and the
properties and personages are as nearly identical as they can be.
The details introduced by way of embellishment (Ezra's violent
manifestations of grief; the storms of rain; the stairs on which the
Levites stood, etc.) are like the similar ones found in every part
of the earlier history, devised solely with the purpose of giving
life to the story, not in order to give it the semblance of truth —
and it does not, indeed, sound in the least like truth. And finally,
the account of the signing of the covenant is, as I have just shown,
one of the Chronicler's specialties, a thing which he brings into
his history over and over again. And all the items of the covenant
are those which he reiterates elsewhere, in about the same words,
in such chapters as II Chron. 31 and Neh. 13.

In all this there is not a word which sounds like popular tra
dition, nor a single incident which stands outside the direct line of
the Chronicler's tendency. As for names of persons and places,
what appears to be opulence in this regard is really the extreme of
poverty. We have only the same old threadbare stuff, names of
"the chief of the people, the priests, and the Levites" which have
been paraded in every chapter of the book since the time of Moses.
"Ezra" himself is the personification of the Chronicler's interests,
completely identical with the Nehemiah of Neh. 13 and (mutatis
mutandis) with each of the long list of ecclesiastical heroes and
reformers created by the Chronicler and introduced by him into
his history of the Judean kingdom. It is a most significant fact,
among others, that the Chronicler did not know who the governor
of Judea was during the first part of the reign of Artaxerxes II.
He could not leave him out, and therefore speaks of him simply as
"the Tirshatha" in Neh. 7:70, 8:9, and 10:2 (see the note on the
last-named passage).15 He did undertake to present, as a matter

15 It appears to be a similar instance of caution when he employs the term, without the
name, in Ezr. 2 : 63 and Neh. 7 : 65. The reason for this is obvious. The Aramaic tale, incor
porated by the Chronicler, says expressly (Ezr. 5:14) that Sheshbazzar was the HFIS
"governor" of the Jews at the time when the foundation of the temple was laid; while
the same document (6: 7) gives Zerubbabel the title HHS "governor." In the face of these
conflicting statements, there was only one prudent course. It was doubtless from the same
motive — caution — that the Chronicler chose the unusual term XmtJin "Tirshatha." Just
as soon as he gets back to firm ground, in Neh. 12:26, he writes "Nehemiah the gover

264 EZEA STUDIES

of course, a list of the high-priests during the Persian period.
Regarding the list, which contains too few names, and gives other
evidence of being artificially created, I shall have more to say
later. It is uncertain whether he intended the persons named in
Ezr. 10:6, "the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib," to
belong to the high-priestly line, or not (cf. Neh. 13:4:); if that
was his intention, so much the worse for his chronology.

Certain words of Bernheim, Die historische Methode1, p. 426,
are so nearly applicable to the present case that they are worth
quoting. He writes: "In einer eigenthiimlichen Lage befindet
sich die Kritik manchen Zeugnissen gegentiber, die, einzig in ihrer
Art, durch andere Quellen weder positiv noch negativ zu kontrol-
lieren sind, weil aus derselben Zeit, bzw. uber dieselben Thatsachen
gar keine anderen Quellen erhalten sind, wahrend wir obendrein
wissen, dass die Zeugnisse nicht durch weg Zuverlassig sind ; . . . .
und aus einer gewissen Schwache des Gemuts sind wir geneigt,
obwohl wir nicht recht trauen, dieselben gelten zu lassen, solange
wir sie nicht kontrollieren konnen, weil wir gar keine Kenntnis
tiber die betreffenden Thatsachen besitzen, falls wir sie aufgeben."
In one respect, indeed, the case before us differs slightly from the
one described by Bernheim, in that the documents which he char
acterizes are "not altogether trustworthy;" while in the
writings of the Chronicler we have the work of an author who is
well known to us as thoroughly untrustworthy, and, what is
far more important, as one who composes history with a motive
which is obviously furthered by this very narrative.
That being the case, it is plain that no use whatever can be made
of any part of the Ezra story as a source for the history of the
Jews in the Persian period. The same is of course true of Neh.
7:1—69 and chaps. 11 --13, with the solitary exception of the list
of high-priests in 12:10f., 22, where we are able partially to
control the Chronicler's statements by the help of other sources.

The translation which here follows is based on an emended
text, the reason for the emendation being given in each case.
Our massoretic text is in the main excellent, standing probably
very close to what the Chronicler himself wrote. The other texts
(rendered by I Esdras, Theodotion, and Jerome) are inferior.
I have omitted the lists of names and the long prayer in Neh. 9,
as not essential to my present purpose, which is to print the
narrative as it originally stood.

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 265
THE ACCOUNT OF THE EXPEDITION4

(Ezr. 8 : 1-36 ; Neh. 7 : 70-73a)

Ezr. 81 And these are the chief of the fathers,13 and their
genealogy, those who went up with me from Babylonia0 in the
reign of Artaxerxes the king. 2Of the sons of Phinehas, Ger-
shom, .... etc. (Then follows, in vss. 2-14, the list,

composed in the Chroniclers characteristic manner.} Iol

assembled them at the river which flows into the Ahava,d and
there we encamped for three days. And I took account of the
people,e and of the priests, but of the sons of Levi I found none
there. 16So I sent Eliezer, Ariel, Shemaiah, Elnathan, Jarib,f
Nathan, Zachariah, and Meshullam, chief men; and Joiarib and
Elnathan, men of discernment; "directing them to Iddo, who
was the chief in the place Casiphia. And I instructed them
what to say to Iddo my brother,g and to the Nethinim in the
place Casiphia, to bring us servants for the house of our God.
18 And by the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a
man of understanding, of the sons of Mahli, son of Levi, son of
Israel; evenh Sherebiah, with his sons and his brethren, eighteen;
19Also Hashabiah and1 Jeshaiah, of the sons of Merari, with their
brethren1 and their children, twenty. 20And of the Nethinim,

aFor a translation of the narrative immediately preceding, see above,
pp. 205-7.

bCf. Ezr. 1:5, and especially I Esdr. 5:4. See the texts and annotations
given above, pp. 120-35.

c" Babylonia," not "Babylon;" cf. my notes, above, on II Chron. 36:20,
Ezr. 5: 12,6:1.

dThe name is known only from this chapter, and the translation is
accordingly uncertain.

eThe Chronicler has no fixed order of mentioning these three classes:
"people (or, 'Israel'), priests, Levites." The order found here occurs very
frequently; thus I Chron. 9:2, 23:2, II Chron. 17:7 f. (contrast 19:8), 34:30,
35:8f., Ezr. 1:5, I Esdr. 4:53ff., Ezr. 2:2ff., 6:16, 7:7, 13, 9:1, Neh. 8:13,
10:28, 11: 3. See also above, p. 238, note.

fThe "Elnathan" which follows this name in MT is due to the error of a
copyist whose eye strayed to the same pair of names just one line
below. Our text is otherwise correct. Cf. with this vs. II Chron. 17: 7! The
Chronicler's style is not like that of any one else.

elt is obvious that D^DSn TTIX must be divided n^PSm T!X .

hThe occasional use of an "explicative waw" in both the Hebrew and
the Aramaic of the Greek period is well attested. Cf. my notes, above, on
I Esdr. 3:1, 6, Ezr. 6:8, 9; further, I Chron. 28:1, Neh. 8:13, 9:16, 10:29.
Theodotion's Hebrew had here T21 1X1 Tlhl , instead of

1 Reading niO and

266 EZKA STUDIES

whom David and the princes gave for the service of the Levites:
two hundred and twenty Nethinim, all registered by name.

21And I proclaimed a fast there, at the river Ahava, that we
might humble ourselves before our God, to seek from him a
prosperous journey, for ourselves, our little ones, and all our
goods. 22For I had been ashamed to ask of the king an armed
and mounted guard, to protect us from enemies on the way;
because we had said to the king: The hand of our God is upon
all those who seek him, for good; but his power and his wrath
are against all who forsake him. 2ySo we fasted, and besought
our God for this, and he accepted our prayer.

24And I set apart twelve men of the chief priests, ....
Sherebiah and Hashabiah and ten of their brethren.k 2°And I
weighed out for them the silver, and the gold, and the vessels;
the offering for the house of our God which the king, and his
counselors and princes, and all Israel there present had offered.
26 1 weighed into their hand six hundred and fifty talents of
silver, and one hundred silver vessels worth .... talents;1 one
hundred talents of gold; 2T twenty bowls of gold worth a thousand
darics;m and twelve vessels of fine polished bronze," precious as
gold. 28And I said to them:0 Ye are holy unto Yah we, and the
vessels are holy, and the silver and the gold are a freewill offering
to Yah we the God of your fathers. 29 Watch and keep them,
until ye weigh them out before the chief priests and Levites and
the chief of the fathers of Israel, in Jerusalem, inp the chambers
of the house of Yahwe. 30So the priests and the Levites received
the weight of the silver and the gold, and the vessels, to bring
them to Jerusalem to the house of our God.

k Probably something has fallen out after the numeral "twelve," either
the single word D^lbrVE"! or else a longer passage. We should expect twelve
priests and twelve Levites, cf. vss. 30 and 33. The 5 before "Sherebiah"
was pretty certainly written by the Chronicler himself.

'The numeral seems to have fallen out; it must have stood just after the
word " talents."

m The word "pDTlX, derived from 5apetK6s, originated in the Greek period
and was formed after the analogy of "j"T52D"n, "drachma." The
Chronicler uses it also in I Chron. 29: 7.

nThe numeral here was originally TltJIP D^jtCJ, as I Esdr. 8:56 (5^/co, dvo)
shows. See also Josephus, Antt. xi, 136. ntjns is construct state, and
(a noun, of course, with collective meaning) is probably corre(>t.

°Cf. I Chron. 15: 12, II Chron. 29:5, 35:3-6. Very characteristic.

pThe text is slightly corrupt.

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 267

31 And we set out from the river Ahava on the twelfthq day of April 12
the first month, to go to Jerusalem. And the hand of our God
was upon us, and he delivered us from the power of the enemy
and the lier-in-wait, on the way. 32So we came to Jerusalem,
and there we abode for three days. 33And on the fourth day the August 1
silver, the gold, and the vessels were weighed in the house of our (See 7:8f.)
God, under the direction of Meremoth the son of Uriah, the
priest, with whom was Eleazar the son of Phinehas; and with
them were Jozabad the son of Jeshua and Noadiah the son of
Binnui, the Levites. 34(They received) the whole by number and
by weight/ and all of the weight was written down at that time.

35 The children of the exile, those who had just come from the
captivity, offered whole burnt offerings to the God of Israel : twelve
bullocks for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, and
twelve he-goats for a sin offering ; all this as a whole burnt offering
to Yah we. 36And they delivered the orders of the king to his
satraps and the governors of the province Beyond the River;5 these
accordingly aided the people and the house of God. Neb. 770And
some of the chief of the fathers made donations to the work. The
Tirshatha1 gave into the treasury a thousand drachmas" in gold,
fifty basins, thirty priests' garments, and five hundred [minas of
silver] .v 71 And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasury
of the workw twenty thousand drachmas of gold, and two thousand
and two hundred minas of silver. 72And that which the rest of
the people gave was twenty thousand drachmas of gold, two
thousand minas of silver, and sixty-seven priests' garments.

<3aAnd the priests, the Levites, the porters, and the singers,
some of the people, and the Nethinim, even all Israel, dwelt in
their cities/

qThe Chronicler's favorite number, again, for this most important date.

r The same peculiar construction, and the same words, in I Chron. 28: 14 ff.

s Concerning these officers, see above, pp. 125, 174 f.

llhat is, the governor of Judea. The Chronicler employs the title in
Ezr. 2:63, Neh. 7:65, 8:9, and (probably) 10:2; in these passages, also, as a non
committal designation, the name not being given. "Nehemiah" in 8:9 and
10:2 is an interpolation; see the notes on the two passages.

"Observe the Greek word.

vlt is probable, as many have observed, that the words D^p COD origi
nally stood between 1 and ttJttn.

wWith this whole passage cf. I Chron. 29:6ff. (obviously the work of the
same hand!), II Chron. 29:31 ff., 35:7 ff.

xCf. I Chron. 9:2 and Ezr. 2:1 (end)! Our text of the verse is probably
just what the Chronicler wrote.

268 EZRA STUDIES

THE READING OF THE LAW

(Neh. 7:736— 8:18)

7736And when the seventh month was come, the children of
Israel being in their cities,y 8!all the people assembled as one
man at the open place before the water gate;2 and they sent word
to Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the Law of Moses, which
Yah we had commanded to Israel. 2So Ezra the priest brought
the law before the congregation, both men and women, and all that
October 1 could hear with understanding, on the first day of the seventh
month. 3And he read in it, over against the open place before the
water gate, from early morning until midday, before the men and
women and all who could understand; and the ears of all the
people were attentive to the book of the law. 4And Ezra the
scribe stood upon a pulpit of wooda which had been made for the
purpose; and there stood beside him Mattathiah, Shema, Anaiah,
Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and at his left
hand Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, and
Zechariah.b 5And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the
people (for he was above the people), and as he opened it they all
stood up. 6Then Ezra blessed Yah we, the great God; and all the
people answered, Amen, amen, lifting up their hands, and they
bowed down and worshiped Yah we with their faces to the ground.
7 Moreover Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai,
Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, and Pelaiah,
the Levites,c instructed the people in the law, while all remained
in their places. 8And they read in the book of the law distinctly ,d
and gave the sense, so that the reading was understood.

y Compare I Chron. 13:2, which is an instructive parallel.

zSee above, pp. 234, 247; and compare also II Chron. 5:3, 29:4.

aCf. the brazen pulpit used by Solomon on a similar occasion, II Chron.
6:13 (not in Kings). Just as Neh. 7:70-72 is repeated from I Chron. 29:6-8,
so the whole scene in Neh. 8 is, in its main features, a repetition of the one
pictured in II Chron., chaps. 5-7. See my Composition, p. 59.

b Neither Greek version gives "Meshullam," and it obviously originated
in a marginal variant of b^fl&'Q or bXTlhp . These twelve names are intended
as those of laymen; cf. 10:15-28, and Ezr. 10:25-43.

c Omit "1 . The number of these names was probably twelve originally, but
there is no good ground for emending the text. In Theodotion's original, the
resemblance of 'pft'1 to D"lj"l(H)2) had caused the accidental omission of
eleven words.

dThe usage elsewhere, and the evident intent of the grammatical con
nection here, combine to render this meaning certain.

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 269

9 And the Tirshatha,6 and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the
Levites who taught the people, said to all the people : This day is
holy unto Yah we your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the
people wept, when they heard the words of the law. 10Theyf also
said to them: Go, eat the fat and drink the sweet, and send por
tions to him that hath no provision ; for this day is holy unto our
Lord. And be ye not distressed; for the joy of Yahw6 is your
strength. nAnd the Levites quieted all the people, saying: Be
still, for the day is holy; neither be ye distressed. 12So all the
people went away, to eat and drink, and to send portions, and to
make great rejoicing, for they gave heed to the things which had
been told them.

13Then were assembled |g on the following day the chief of the October 2
fathers of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra
the scribe, even that they might give attention to the words of the
law. "And they found written in the law, that YahwS had given
command, through Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell
in booths during the festival of the seventh month; 15and that
they should proclaim11 and publish in all their cities and in Jeru
salem, saying: Go forth to the mountain, and bring olive branches,
and branches of wild olive, also of the myrtle, and the palm, and
other leafy trees, in order to make booths according to the pre
scription. 16So the people went forth, and brought them; and they
made for themselves booths, upon their own roofs, and in their
courts, and in the courts of the house of God; also in the open
places before the water gate and the gate of Ephraim. 17And all
the congregation, those who had returned from the captivity,1
made booths and dwelt in them; for the children of Israel had not
done thus from the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that

"The words tfln PPErE are a later addition, as the old Greek version
shows. See the note on 7:70. Theodotion's original had simply substituted
the name "Nehemiah," both here and in 10:2.

fThird pers. sing, for indefinite subject, as very often elsewhere. So
also vs. 18.

re ends the fragment originally plucked from the middle of the old
Greek translation, and known to us as "First Esdras." See above, p. 36.

UA good example of the Chronicler's careless way of narrating (cf. above,
pp. 158 f.). What here follows ip, of course, not what they found in the law,
but what Ezra said to ^hose who had come to him. (It is possible, to be sure,
that the original text had IIEX Tatf-H in place of

!Cf. Ezr. 6:21, 8:35.

270 EZRA STUDIES

day.k And there was very great rejoicing. 18And they read in
the book of the law of God day by day, from the first day unto
October 22 the last. So they observed the feast seven days, and on the eighth
day was a festal assembly, according to the ordinance.

THE EXPULSION OF THE GENTILE WIVES

(Ezr. 9:1—10:44)

Ezr, 9 !Now when these things were finished, the chief men
November (?) drew near to me, saying: The people of Israel, the priests, and
the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the
land, with1 all their abominations, namely the Canaanites, Hittites,
Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and
Amorites. 2For they have taken of their daughters, for them
selves and for their sons, and thus the holy race hath been mixed"1
with the peoples of the land. Moreover, the hand of the chief men
and the rulers hath been foremost in this trespass. 3When I
heard this thing, I rent my garment and my cloak, and plucked out
some of the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat as though
stunned. 4Then were assembled unto me all those that trembled
at the words of the God of Israel, because of the trespass of the
men of the exile ; but I continued sitting as though stunned, until
the evening offering. 5And at the time of the evening offering
I arose from my humiliation, even with my garment and my cloak
rent; and I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto
Yah we my God.n "And I said: O my God, I am confounded and

k Meaning, of course, that the festival had not before been observed so
universally and completely, since the time of Joshua. The state
ment is merely a parallel to the one found in II Chron. 3"): 18. The Chronicler
had several times, in the earlier history, mentioned the celebration of this
festival, and with emphasis. See not only Ezr. 3:4, but especially II Chron.
7:8ff., 8:13, in both of which passages he has deliberately
altered the text of Kings. He could not possibly have put into his
book, here in the Ezra story, a flat contradiction of the statement which he
had previously made with so evidently studied purpose.

'I believe that the reading of our text (with D) is correct. This is prob
ably one of the Chronicler's ellipses.

mCf. Ps. 106:35, and especially Neh. 9:2, 13:3. (In the last-named pas
sage Meyer, Entstehung, p. 130, would emend to "Arabs"!)

nCf. II Chron. 6:13. This part of the Ezra story is written in the
Chronicler's liveliest style — not, however, a whit more lively than 10:1-14,
where the story is told of Ezra in the third person. See above, pp. 234, 246 f.
The prayer which follows is also thoroughly characteristic.

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 271

ashamed to lift up0 my face unto thee ; for our sins have multiplied
exceedingly ,p and our guilt hath mounted high as the heavens.

7 Since the days of our fathers we have been exceeding guilty, unto
this day; and for our sins, we, our kings, and our priests, have
been given into the power of the kings of the lands, for slaughter,
for captivity, for plundering, and for humiliation, as at this day.

8 But now for a moment grace hath been given from Yah we our
God, to save for us a remnant, and to give us a secure fastening
in his holy place; that our God may restore the light to our eyes,
and grant us a little reviving in our bondage. 9For bondservants
we are;q yet in our bondage our God hath not forsaken us, but
hath extended to us favor in the sight of the kings of Persia, to
grant us a reviving, to raise up the house of our God, and to repair
its ruins, and to give us a wall of protection1" in Judea and Jeru
salem. 10Now therefore, O our God, what shall we say after this?
for we have forsaken thy commandments, n which thou didst com
mand by thy servants the prophets, saying:5 The land which ye
are entering, to possess it, is a land foul with the filth of the
heathen peoples, with their abominations, since they have filled it
from end to end with their uncleanness. 12Now therefore give
not your daughters to their sons, nor take for your sons their
daughters, nor seek their peace or their welfare, for ever;1 that
ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and make it the
perpetual inheritance of your children." 13And after all that hath
come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great guilt, — and yet
thou, O our God, hast spared us, punishingv less than our sins
deserve, and hast given us such a remnant as this, — u shall we
again break thy commandments, and intermarry with the people of

0 With the peculiar interjection of "^ntf at this point, cf. the similar case
in I Chron. 29:17.

p The impossible TTX*! is merely dittography of the following TDX1 .

^Cf. especially Neh. 9:36.

rThis is of course figurative!

sThe manner of the following quotation, given as from "the Prophets"
(by which word he means primarily Moses) and not truly representing any
single passage, is exactly what we have already noticed in II Chron. 36:21
(see the note above, p. 120). The Chronicler quotes as he writes — carelessly
and irresponsibly.

1 All this is a most instructive example of misquotation!
uCf. I Chron. 28:8 (not in Sam.-Kings).

YThe Hebrew contains one of the Chronicler's ellipses.

272 EZKA STUDIES

these abominations? Wouldest thou not be angry with us to the
point of cutting us off without residue or remnant? 10O Yah we,
God of Israel, thou dealest righteously, that we are left a remnant
as at this day ; behold we are before thee in our guilt, for none can
stand before thee because of this.

10 l Now while Ezraw prayed and made confession, weeping
and prostrating himself before the house of God, there were
assembled unto him a very great congregation of the people of
Israel, men, women, and children; moreover the people wept
exceedingly. 2Then Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of
Elam, said to Ezra: We have trespassed against our God, and
have married foreign women of the peoples of the land; yet even
now there is hope for Israel, in spite of this. 3Now therefore
let us make a covenant with our God, to put away all such wives, x
and the children born of them, according to the counsel of my
lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God;y
and let obedience be given to the law.2 * Arise, for the matter
resteth upon thee, and we are with thee; stand firm, and do it.
5 So Ezra arose, and made the chief men of the priests, of the
Levites, and of all Israel, swear that they would do according to
this word. So they took oath.

6 Then Ezra withdrew from before the house of God, and went
to the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib,a and there he
passed the night ;b he ate no bread, nor drank water, for he was
mourning because of the trespass of the men of the exile. 7And
they made proclamation throughout Judea and Jerusalem, to all
those of the exile, that they should assemble at Jerusalem; 8and

wThe reason for the use of the third person in this chapter is simply this,
that when the Chronicler sat down to write it he did not happen to identify
himself, in imagination, with his hero. On the next occasion, in another
mood, he might write in the first person; he was under no obligation to write
always in the same way. See the remarks above, pp. 244 f.

xThe qualifying "such" is of course understood from the context. The
article is omitted just as in 1:11 (see my note, p. 124) and in vs. 17 of this
chapter.

^That is: after my lord (Ezra) shall have consulted with the more devout
of the leaders of Israel. See vs. 5.

z Namely, the law which had just been read, and from which the "chief
men" (cf. 9:1 with Neh. 8:13) had learned of the prohibition of foreign mar
riages. See the introductory remarks, above.

aSee the introductory remarks at the beginning of this chapter.

b Reading ]b^ instead of iVn.

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 273

that whoever did not come within three specified0 days, accord
ing to the counsel of the chief men and the elders, all his property
should be forfeited, and he himself separated from the congrega
tion of the exile.

9 Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jeru
salem within the three days; it wasd the ninth month, on the
twentieth day of the month. And all the people sat in the open December 20
place before the house of God, trembling because of this matter,
and because of the storms of rain. 10Then Ezra the priest arose,
and said to them: Ye have trespassed, and have married foreign
women, adding this to the guilt of Israel. 1]Now therefore make
confession to Yah we, the God of your fathers, and do his will ; and
separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the
foreign wives. 12Then all the congregation answered and said
with a loud voice: Thus, according to thy word, it is our duty to
do. 13But the people are many, and this is a time of heavy rains,
so that we cannot remain out of doors. Moreover it is not a work
of one day, nor of two; for very many of us have sinned in this
manner. uLet our chief men (that is, of all the congregation)6
be stationed here, and let all those in our cities who have taken
foreign wives come to them at stated times, and with them the
elders and judgesf of their several cities; to the end that we may
turn back from us the wrath of our God because of s this thing.
(^Nevertheless Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son
of Tikwah stood against this counsel, and Meshullam and Shab-
bethai the Levite seconded them.)h lbAnd the people of the

exile did so. Ezra the priest and1 certain chief men according to

clf the definite article is original here (D^Tl), this must be its meaning.
That is, three days were appointed during which the men were to present
themselves at Jerusalem for registration.

d Nothing is missing here! Cf. 7: 8 and 6: 15, and see my note (p. 195, note c)
on the latter passage. This is a common and thoroughly Semitic construction.

eCf. Neh. 9:32, II Chron. 23:4, 28:15, etc. The b explaining the suffix,
as so often in Arabic.

fCf. II Chron. 15:3, 19:5, Ezra 7:10, 25 f., and see above, p. 237.

gRead "Q*Tn by, with Jerome, Theodotion (cf. vs. 9), and, almost cer
tainly, the old Greek version (the irepl of the L text, I Esdr. 9:13, is presumably
derived from Theodotion, however).

hThe Chronicler's imagination delighted in creating such incidents, as I
have already shown writh abundant illustration. Cf. also II Chron. 30:10f.,
18, I Chron. 21 : 6, Neh. 7 : 61-65, as well as such passages as II Chron. 28 : 12, etc.

; Read D^TEStfl , with Theodotion and Jerome. The old Greek (= ib b'WI)
also gives sure evidence that the original verb was ibT^i, for ib is impos-

274 EZRA STUDIES

their families, all designated by name, were set apart; and they
January 1 were in session on the first day of the tenth month to examine
the matter. 17And they finished with all the menk who had mar-
April 1 ried foreign women by the first day of the first month.

18 And there were found among the sons of the priests, who had
married foreign women: of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak,
and his brethren;1 Maaseiah, Eliezer, Jarib, and Gedaliah.
19 They gave their pledge that they would put away their wives;
and for their trespass they were fined m a ram of the nock. 20And
of the sons of Immer; Hanani and Zebediah. (Then follows,

in vss. 21-43, the remainder of the list.) "All these had

taken foreign wives; and they sent them back (to their people),
both wives and children."

THE COVENANT AGAINST GENTILE MARRIAGES AND IN
SUPPORT OF THE CLERGY

(Neh. 9:1— 10:40)

April 24 Neh. 9 'Now on the twenty-fourth0 day of this month the
children of Israel assembled, fasting, and in sackcloth, and with
earth upon their heads. 2And the seed of Israel separated them
selves from all foreigners ;p and they took their places, and con
fessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers. 3And they
stood up in their places, and read in the book of the law of Yahwe

sible here. This latter blunder ultimately produced the text of which the
translation (presumably by Aquila or Symmachus) has in this verse supplanted
the rendering of Theodotion in the bizarre L recension.

kRead D^tihX ^??« The Chronicler omits the article here exactly as he
does in vs. 3 and in 1:1; see the notes on these passages.
Note A, at the end of the chapter.

, like the Syriac «n » ~ . may take a direct object. On the elliptical
clause (very characteristic) see p. 197, note k.

"The original was D^jll O^tpD D'Q^TpJT. By an easy accident, the two
letters "D were dropped from the first word. The resulting D^TITI , which
was absolutely impossible, naturally produced the variant, DPTS TZPH . In
our MT both of these readings are ingeniously used; the latter at the begin
ning of the clause, and the former, 'E"11E"n , inserted before D"3S1 . (For a
similar case of ingenuity in combining two variant Greek readings, see the L
text of Neh. 13: 20.) The old Greek version, I Esdr. 9: 36, renders the Hebrew
which I have conjectured. See further, on the restoration of this verse, Note
A, at the end of this chapter.

"Observe the multiple of twelve; see the note on Ezr. 8:31, and also p. 246.

Pit is obvious that this is the immediate sequel of Ezr. 9:1 — 10:44. Cf.
with this clause especially Ezr. 9:1 and 10:11; and see, further, the intro
ductory remarks.

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 275

their God for a fourth part of 'the day ; and for another fourth
part they made confession, and worshiped Yahwe their God.
4Then Jeshua and the sonsq of Kadmiel, (namely) Shechaniah,q
Bunni, Sherebiah, Bani, and Chenani, stood upon the elevated
place of the Levites and cried with a loud voice unto Yahwe their
God. 5Also the Levites, Hashabneiah,q Sherebiah, Hodiah, She-
baniah, and Pethahiah, said: Come,r bless Yahwe your God.
[And Ezra said: Blessed art thou, Yahwe our God,s] from ever
lasting to everlasting; and blessed be thy name, glorious and1
exalted above all blessing and praise. 6Thou, Yahwe, art (God)
alone. Thou hast made the heavens, the heavenu of heavens, and
all their host; the earth, and all creatures that are upon it; -the
seas, and all things that are in them. Thou givest life to them
all, and to thee the host of heaven boweth down. (Then

follows, in vss. 7-57, the remainder of the prayer, the last words
of which are these:} 36 Behold, we are vassals today; and as

for the land which thou gavest to our fathers, to eat its fruit and
its good things, we are bondmen upon it. 37Itv bringeth forth its
abundant produce for the kings whom thou hast set over us
because of our sins; they have power also over our persons and
our cattle, at their pleasure. Yea, we are in great distress.w

the text of this veree and the following, see Note B, at the end of the
chapter.

rlt is possible that TQIp is to be taken here in its literal meaning "stand
up;" but more probably it means simply "up! come!" as in II Chron. 6:41,
Ezr. 10:4, and many other passages; i. e., it is used here just as tf3 is used in
the parallel I Chron. 29:20.

•Concerning the lacuna here, see Note C, at the end of the chapter.

trThe conjunction, to which some have objected, is quite in place. The
construction which is virtually adjectival is continued by one which is really
such.

"Those who would emend here (and in many similar places) by inserting
the conjunction "I , should bear in mind that the Chronicler is fond of enu
merating in the Aramaic way, omitting the conjunction in every place but
the last.

vWith the Chronicler's characteristic omission of the subject; cf. the
note on Ezr. 10:19.

wThe closing part of this prayer is strikingly similar to the close of the
prayer in Ezr. 9. Vss. 33-37 here are the expanded counterpart of vss. 9, 13,
and 15 there. The prayer in Neh. includes also supplication for mercy (vs. 32).
Neh. 10:1 (9:38 in the English version) is not a part of the prayer, but the
resumption of the ^arrative. It is not strange that some scholars should have
thought the transition here "abrupt;" it is smoothness itself, however, com-

276 EZRA STUDIES

10 *In consequence of all thisx we made an abiding covenant,
in writing, and to sign ity stood our princes, our Levites, and our
priests; 2and at the head of the signers2 were the Tirshathaz and
Zedekiah.2 3Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah; 4Pashhur, . . . .

etc. (Then follows, in vss. 4-58, the remainder of the

list.)3- a9And the rest of the people, and ofb the priests, the
Levites, the porters, the singers, and the Nethinim, even all those
who had separated themselves from the peoples of the land unto
the law of God, with their wives and their sons and daughters, all
who had knowledge and understanding,0 30 stood fast by their
brethren, their leaders, and entered into a curse and an oath, to
walk in the law of God, which was given through Moses the serv
ant of God, and to keep and perform all the commandments of
Yah we our Lord, and his ordinances and his statutes: 31to wit,
that we would not give our daughters to the peoples of the land,
nor take their daughters for our sons; 32and that whenever the
peoples of the land should bring their merchandise or any sort of
grain on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not take it from
them, on the sabbath or on a holy day ; and that we would forego
the product d of the seventh year and the exaction of every debt.

pared to this same writers transitions in I Chron. 28: 19 (!), Ezr. 2: 68, 7: 27 (!),
Neh. 12:27; to say nothing of the many places where he leaps from the first
person to the third, or vice versa, without apparent occasion.

XI. e., all the events narrated in the preceding chapter and in Ezr. 9f.
This covenant gave the finishing touch to Ezra's reform. The words bDHI
PlitfT give a very natural continuation.

y Evidently the technical term.

zOn the text and interpretation of this verse and the preceding, see Note
D, at the end of the chapter.

aOn the number of the names, one of the Chronicler's multiples of twelve,
eee Note D, at the end of the chapter.

bThe construction so often found in the Chronicler's writings; see Ezr.
8:29, 10:5, etc.

cThis verse, which betrays the Chronicler's authorship with almost every
phrase, fairly represents the whole chapter. From this point on to the end,
we can recognize everywhere his peculiar style and diction, and his own special
hobbies. Those who know his writings intimately will see this at once, for it
is beyond all question; those who are not thus prepared will do well to read
II Chron. 31:4-19 first of all.

dlt is obvious that the word n&WSR has been accidentally omitted, by
haplography, after HS ; see Ex. 23: 10 f. and Lev. 25:3-7, the passages which
the Chronicler had in mind. The law of the debtor's release, to which he
refers, is of course Deut. 15: 1-3.

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 277

33 Moreover we imposed upon ourselves stated contributions,6
charging ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel, for the
service of the house of our God; 34for the showbread, the continual
meal offering, and the continual burnt offering, as well as the
offerings of the sabbaths and the new moons; for the feasts, the
holy sacrifices/ and the sin offerings to make atonement for Israel ;
even for all the work of the house of our God. 35Also we cast
lots, the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood offering,
to bring it into the house of our God, according to our fathers'
houses, at appointed times year by year, to burn on the altar of
Yahwe our God, as is prescribed in the law;g a6and (we cove
nanted) to bring the first fruits of our land, and the first of every
sort of fruit of any tree, year by year, to the house of Yahwe;
37 also the firstborn of our sons and of our cattle, as is prescribed
in the law ; and that we would bring the firstlings of our herds and
of our flocks to the house of our God, for the priests who minister
in the house of our God; 38and that the best of our coarse meal,
and of our heaps of grain ( ?),h and of the fruit of every tree, the
wine and the oil, we would bring for the priests, to the chambers
of the house of our God; also the tithes of our land for the
Levites; — and they, the Levites, were to reckon the tithes in all
the cities of our tillage, 39and the1 priest the son of Aaron was to
be with the Levites when they reckoned the tithes; and the
Levites were to bring up the tenth of the tithes to the house of
our God, to the chambers belonging to the treasury; 40for unto
the chambers were the children of Israel and the sons of Levi to

e So also in 13:5, and in the post-Biblical usage.

f Namely those described in II Chron. 29:33 and>35:13.

is a very good example of the Chronicler's heedless and irrespon
sible mode of citation, giving merely what he happened to remember, or
thought he remembered. See above, the notes on II Chron. 36:21
(p. 120) and Ezr. 9:11. Neh. 8:14 is another most instructive instance.

On the text of this verse Bertholet, Comm., says: "L. nach LXX 1 vor
und st. 13YOX ITab 'ax irab."! This is curious textual criticism.

hRead irn^m in place of ^nbnm ? The accidental substitution
of the latter word would then be very natural in view of Num. 15:20 f., etc.
In the text which lay before Theodotion the word had been canceled as
corrupt. The supposition of a gloss has not much likelihood.

'Are we to regard the use of the article here as evidence that this
was the custom followed in the Chronicler's own day?

278 EZRA STUDIES

bring k the offering of corn, and wine, and oil, and there also were
the utensils of the sanctuary, and of1 the priests who minister, and
of the porters and the singers ;m — and that we would not forsake
the house of our God.n

NOTE A (onEzr. 10:44)

There can be no doubt whatever that the original intent of this
verse is expressed in I Esdr. 9:36, according to which I have
restored the Hebrew text. The plan proposed, in Ezr. 10:3, 5,
was to put away both the wives and the children. A complete
census, town by town, was to be taken ; every Israelite who failed
to appear before the authorities was to be expelled from the con
gregation (vs. 8). The people agreed (vs. 12), and also acted
according to the agreement (vs. 16). "By the first day of the
first month" all of those who had married foreign women had
appeared before the judges (vs. 17). The members of the lead
ing priestly house are first mentioned, and it is said of them that
they agreed to put away their wives of foreign birth (vs. 19).
Then follows, without any other introduction, the remainder of
the list. At its close must therefore have stood, in some form, the
statement that these all put away their wives (and presumably the
children also would be mentioned) ; no other continuation is
possible. Furthermore, the immediate sequel in Neh. 9 f. asserts
again that they did separate themselves completely, not only from
the heathen wives and their children (10:29-31), but also from all
the other foreigners (9:2, cf. especially Ezr. 9:1, 10:11). - And

k The contradiction which many recent commentators have found in vss.
38-40 vanishes when they are understood as here indicated. It is not even
necessary to appeal to II Chron. 31: 5-7. This whole passage, however, is very
characteristic of the Chronicler's loose-jointed way of thinking and writing.

'The usual construction; see the note on vs. 29.

mThe status of these Levitical classes is the very same in all parts of
Chron. -Ezr. -Neh. — the writer being generally at no pains to express himself
exactly. See my Composition, pp. 22 f.; also above, p. 236, note 40 — and
Bertholet's Comm., on Neh. ll:17f.!

"The verb (HT373) in this last clause concludes the construction begun by
1^3 in vs. 31, and continued by JlpD and TBE3 in ve. 32, and X"O3 in vs. 38.
The Chronicler intended this whole passage, vss. 31-40, to give the substance
of his "abiding covenant" (n3"32K , vs. 1), and he ends it with a clause which
both sums up the preceding details and also forms a highly suitable close to
the whole Ezra story. Notice that he ends his expanded story of Nehemiah in
a very similar manner (13:31!).

THE EZKA STOKY IN ITS OKIGINAL SEQUENCE 279-

yet our commentators and historians all wonder whether Ezra's-
reform was pictured as successful!

The Chronicler does, indeed, represent this evil of mixed mar
riages as present once more (in a few cases) in the time of
Nehemiah, a dozen years later. The fact that he does so show&
his own great interest in the subject, and that he realized the
impossibility of preventing such alliances entirely ; it also, no
doubt, may be taken as an indication that the Jews in his day were
not as exclusive as he wished to see them.

NOTE B (onNeh. 9:4f.)

It is generally agreed that the lists of Levites given in verses
4 and 5 have been corrupted through copyists' errors. The chief
reason for the corruption is, obviously, the fact that the one list
follows the other so immediately, while each is introduced
by the word D^lbn . The presence of three names written ^DD,
in vs. 4 is more than suspicious, and without much doubt the first
of the three was originally "'jH*! or "III . It was the influence of
the similar list in the preceding chapter (8:7) which caused the
reading of the name "Bani" here, very naturally. Theodotion
rendered: 'I^croO? ical viol Ka£/u??\, Sa^awa16 wo? 2apa/3ta,ir viol
Xavaw, but this is plainly the rendering of a text which is inferior
to MT. For the "sons of Kadmiel," cf. Ezr. 2:40 and Neh. 7:43
(the text of the former passage probably correct, that of the latter
certainly corrupt).18 The possibility must not be overlooked that
the original reading was "Jeshua the son of Kadmiel;" see Neh.
12:24.

The fact that "Shebaniah" appears also in vs. 5 makes it
extremely probable that Theodotion is right with his "Shecha-
niah" in vs. 4; see above.

The first three names in vs. 5 came from vs. 4 (or a variant of
it). The accident in copying was due to proximity plus the fact
that the word D^lbn immediately precedes. The name "Hashab-

is The Hexaplar MSS., &C and B, have here the blunder 2opa/3ta. The coincidence of
the A text with that of L (2,f\evias) proves that Theodotion read H^DDTU • In the names
immediately following, L has been conformed to MT, as usual.

17 The very inferior character of the Hexaplar text is always apparent, from the begin
ning of I Chronicles to the end of Nehemiah; and the most corrupt form of it, in nine cases
out of ten, is that given by Codex B.

18Guthe, in the Polychrome Bible, gives us a most astonishing "emendation" of Ezr. 2: 40
based on one of the blunder a of the Greek text in Codex B (in I Esdr. 5 :26), where some care
less copyist had converted the tachygram of *c«u (V) into is. With this help, Guthe restores
the preposition eis, which is made to govern the genitive case.

280 EZRA STUDIES

neiah" is very likely a copyist's error for "Hashabiah," the man
referred to in 12:24 as a "chief of the Levites."

The whole number of the Levite assistants on this occasion
was eleven. The six named in vs. 4 began the ceremony with
an invocation ; then the five named in vs. 5 called upon the people
to unite in prayer. The prayer was offered by Ezra, who thus
joined himself, in a way, to the Levites of vs. 5, making the
number of those conducting the ceremony to be hvelve in all. Of.
especially 12:36, where the Chronicler makes his Ezra join a
company of the Levite "singers."

NOTE C (the lacuna in Neh. 9:5)

It has been quite generally recognized that something has been
lost from our Hebrew text here, at the point where the long prayer
begins. Theodotion's Greek prefixes Kal elTrev "E£/?a? to the first
words of vs. 6; and it is indeed obvious that some one man (and
presumably Ezra) must have been named as the speaker of the
following words, which occupy more than thirty verses. But it
is even plainer that whatever lacuna there is must be sought
further back than the end of vs. 5. The words TD5 D'oJ,
"thy glorious name," in the last clause of this verse, originally
formed, beyond question, a part of the same address to Yahwe
which is continued in vs. 6. The immediately preceding verb,
^"Q^l , "and let thy glorious name be blessed" (literally, "and
let them bless;" the common Aramaic use of the indefinite third
person plural in place of the passive), shows the same thing.
Moreover, the four words preceding this, Db^'H "12 Dbl^H "/J ,
are now in a strange context; how could these people be exhorted
to "stand up and bless Yahwe from everlasting to everlasting" f
They were not immortal, and had not been eternal. Apparently,
no one has ever studied this verse carefully, for the explanation
of the difficulty is clear almost at the first glance. The Chronicler
is drawing a large part of his devotional material from the Psalms,
as usual. This particular form of words, Dbl2»~i 7P\ D2l3?n "p ,
is found elsewhere only in the doxology appended to Psalms 41
and 106, and quoted from the latter Psalm by the Chronicler in
I Chron. 16:36. The 106th Psalm is not only the Chronicler's
favorite (see especially I Chron. 16:34-36,41, II Chron. 5:13,
7:3, 20:21, Ezr. 3:11), but it is also one from which he is quoting
in this very prayer; see especially vss. 27 f., where it is obvious

THE EZKA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 281

that we have, in the main, a free reproduction of Ps. 106:41—45
(with some very characteristic changes, such as D^Fl? rrilH"! instead
of H*n"l D""-3?3). The theme on which the Psalm is built is pre
cisely the one which the Chronicler is developing here ; and it is
therefore most fitting that its doxology should be used by him as
the introduction of the prayer. When in addition to these facts
it is observed how in another favorite Psalm this doxology, slightly
varied (Ps. 72:18), is continued in the words (vs. 19): "and
blessed be his glorious name (Yf35 tDTZJ) for ever," there can no
longer be any question as to the position of the lacuna and the
reason for the accidental omission. The original text is to be
restored as follows: miT flS 1^H , YElp ' ' ' ' D'lbn TE&m

-p rrrbK mrr

"ijfi SO'"Q"''1 • Dl^Tl "2 . The cause of the accident was the usual
one: the very close resemblance of the omitted words to those
immediately preceding them. In the Hebrew text which lay
before Theodotion the words fcOT" T-tf"1 had been restored (in
the wrong place, necessarily) simply because it was well
known that they had once stood at the beginning of
the prayer; there is no other satisfactory way of explaining
their presence.19 It is barely possible that the rov Oeov TI^WV of
the Greek is the veritable translation of IFSlbK (in which case
we should have either to regard the DD^nb^ of our MT as the
result of correction or corruption, or else to suppose that a similar
accidental omission took place in the Greek version); but in
view of the thousands of cases of confusion of rji^Mv and VIJL&V by
Greek scribes it is much more likely that we have to do with a
mere copyist's error. As for the original extent of the passage
omitted from the Hebrew, it is not probable that it contained
anything more than the words here restored.

There is one other very striking parallel to be noticed. In
I Chron., chaps. 28 f. (not in Sam. -Kings), the Chronicler depicts
a scene somewhat resembling the one which he has constructed
here in his story of Ezra. All the people are assembled at Jeru
salem, and David the king offers prayer before them. He calls
upon them to "bless Yah we," using the very words which are
uttered by the Levites in Neh. 9:5; though in I Chron. 29:20

19 It was a somewhat similar case wlien the three chapters, Neh. 8-10, were transposed
again to the book of Ezra, 111 the recension represented by our I Esdras, and attached in the
wrong place (nocessarily). The thing was done simply because it was well known that they
had once formed a part of the Ezra story.

282 EZRA STUDIES

the command D^ntf HIIT n&$ &W Ij^D, follows the prayer
instead of preceding it. The prayer itself begins with the
words (29:10): IVTiff* Tibs »Tl»T f HDIS -pis : Tin ^EKI
Dbl3? "I3H Dbl""3 , Ij^S ; and then continues in much the same
way as Neh. 9:6. The Chronicler loves to repeat the incidents,
and the set phrases, which he has already used.

NOTE D (on Neh. 10: If.)

It is not strange that the use of the participle in 10:1
{D"rrQ » D'Cro) should have misled some translators, ancient and
modern^ into connecting the verse with the preceding prayer; all
the more because the first person plural has just been used
there, while in the introductory narrative, 9:1-5, the first person
was not used. But it is certain that the verse is narrative; this
would be sufficiently evident, indeed, even if it were not directly
continued in vss. 29 f. by the same narrating participle
(D-p^TnE , IT&O) and by the first person plural ("our
Lord;" "we would not give our daughters," etc.). This whole
passage affords one of the very best illustrations of the Chronicler's
intolerably heedless way of carrying on a story ; the best single
parallels are perhaps I Chron. 28:19, Ezr. 7:27, and (carelessness
of another sort) Neh. 13:1, 6.

In vs. 2, it is obvious that D^7-^irinn is impossible, and equally
obvious (see, for example, the English versions!) that the plural
number refers to the signers who are named in the following
verses.20 The original reading must have been D"pninn , active
participle, "those who sealed" the document. It may well be that
Theodotion, who renders by e-Trt TWV o-^payi&vrcov, actually had
this reading before him; we should have expected him otherwise.
to render by ecr^pa^Ld^evwv^ cf. the variant introduced into the
text of Codex tf by the corrector of the seventh century.21 Our
massoretic reading, DT^nnn b? , is the result of a lapsus calami
caused by the D^rinS""! b^ in the line above.

The name uNehemiah the son of Hachaliah" is an interpo
lation ; see the notes, above, on 7:70 and 8:9. The text as origi
nally written by the Chronicler contained here only fcttVjmn ,
4 'the Tirshatha." The interpolation is the same one which has
been made in several other places, as one of the inevitable results

20 The desperate expedient of making the plural refer to a plural number of documents,
or to the things ( ! ) contained in the document, gives no help.

21 See above, p. 96, note 38.

THE EZRA STORY IN ITS ORIGINAL SEQUENCE 283

of the transplanting of the three chapters of the Ezra story into
the book of Nehemiah. In our Hebrew text, it has taken place
also in 8:9, and in both cases the interpolated name "Nehemiah"
stands side by side with the original "Tirshatha." In the Hebrew
text rendered by Theodotion, the process had gone so far that the
unfamiliar word "Tirshatha" had been dropped altogether.22
In a few Greek manuscripts, moreover — notably in Codex B —
the same thing has taken place even in 7:70(1), "Nehemiah"
being simply substituted for "Tirshatha." In the old Greek
version, on the contrary, the original reading, containing the
title but not the name, is preserved in 8:9 (I Esdr. 9:49) ; and
if we possessed the rest of this version we should doubtless find
the same thing true in 10:2. Yet even earlier than the date of
this translation, probably soon after the transposition of the
chapters, the interpolation of the name "Nehemiah" began; a fact
which receives very interesting illustration in the presence of
NeeAuWinI Esdr. 5:40(!).23

The "Zedekiah" of this verse is a character created simply in
order to provide a companion for the anonymous "Tirshatha."
The Chronicler did not know who the governor of Judea was dur
ing the first part of the reign of this Artaxerxes, and did not
venture to give him a name ; but it would not do to appear not to
know who he was, hence the name of his associate, »Tp~i!£ ,
"at the head of" the list of signers. It may have been the case
that he thought of the governor as a Persian, and wished to put
beside him a representative of the people; but it seems more
likely, on the contrary, that the official who had contributed so
magnificently to the treasury of the temple (7:70), and then
shortly after had helped Ezra instruct the people in the religion
of Israel (8:9), and wrho now pledged himself to follow the law
of Moses, to keep his family free from intermarriage with for
eigners (10:31), and to show himself in all things a faithful
member of "the congregation," was thought of as a Jew.
Whether the Chronicler intended his "Zedekiah" to be a prince,
or a private secretary, is a question of very slight importance, and

22 The 6 KCU A0apao-0a? of the L text in Neh. 10:2(1) is, of course, merely one of the
Lucianic corrections from the massoretic Hebrew.

23 The tendency to interpolate the name of the unnamed official, especially when he was
believed to have been so important a person as Nehemiah or Zerubbabel, was of course very
stroi;g at all times. We see several instances of exactly this sort — interesting parallels to
those just described — in I Esdr. 6: 17, 26, 28, in all three of which verses the name Zopo£<x/3eA
has been interpolated for the purpose of identifying the " governor" who is mentioned.

284 EZRA STUDIES

one which it will never be possible to answer. The reason why
Ezra's name does not appear among the signers is of course
this, that he was regarded as above the necessity of taking this
oath, which had in it something of the nature of a confession of
evil-doing (see 9:1 f., 10:29 f., and HST b» in 10:1). The
man who had come all the way from Babylonia in order to. call
the Jews to account for their neglect of the Pentateuch (Ezr.
7:14!), and under whose vehement rebuke they were now making
this solemn promise to return to the right path, certainly had no
need to sign the document.

The number of the names of the signers (D'Erfim) calls for
especial notice. This written covenant, according to the repre
sentation of the Chronicler, marked an epoch in the history of
Israel. The document was one, moreover, which contained a
summary of his own pet interests, and those who signed it were
the representatives of a community reformed according to his
ideals. It is, therefore, a foregone conclusion that the number of
names will be found to be a multiple of twelve; just as in his
"great list," in Ezr. 2 and Neh. 7, he starts off with twelve
"leaders" (Ezr. 2:2, Neh. 7:7), and makes the whole number of
the people equal to twelve times the number of years which had
elapsed since the creation of the world (see above, p. 250). Here
in Neh. 10:2-28 the numbering is as follows: two leaders;
twenty-one priests ; seventeen Levites ; forty-four laymen. Total,
eighty-four. 84 = 7 X 12.

IX
THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION

I. PREVAILING MISCONCEPTIONS

The Babylonian exile of the Judean Hebrews, which was in
reality a small and relatively insignificant affair, has been made,
partly through mistake and partly by the compulsion of a theory,
to play a very important part in the history of the Old Testament.
The successive steps of the process which resulted in the erroneous
view are all plain to see. (a) The exaggerated account of the
deportation of the people given by II Kings 25 (see further
below) furnished the starting-point. (6) At about the time when
the completion of the temple was undertaken by Zerubbabel, it
became customary to speak of an interval of seventy years.
The years were numbered from the destruction of the temple until
its rebuilding; that is, employing the terms of our chronology,
from 586 to 516 B. c.1 This, the original "seventy years"
period of distress, is twice mentioned by Zechariah, in 1:12
and 7:5. It had nothing to do with Babylonia or with the return
of exiles, (c) Somewhat later than this arose, naturally enough,
the poetical idea of the "sabbath rest" of the worn and weary
land. The love of the devout Israelites for Jerusalem and the
sacred province in which it lay was far stronger in the Persian
period than it had ever been before, and their reflection on the
chastisement of Israel assumed this characteristic form, among
others. While the temple was in ruins, and the religious activity
of the chosen people in the sacred place was suspended, or
hampered, Yahwe was purposing to bring good out of evil. The
people had merited his wrath, but his love for Zion, the holy city,
who had already "paid double for all her sins," remained una
bated. At last, after the interval which he had appointed, the
new era dawned, and the abandoned work was taken up again.
Jerusalem, after its day of rest, entered upon another week; the

!At that early period, there was of course no difficulty with the chronology from
Nebuchadrezzar downward. At the time when Haggai prophesied, there wore men living
who had seen the first temple (Hag. 2:3).

285

286 EZKA STUDIES

land had "enjoyed its sabbaths" (Lev. 26:34 f., 43).2 (d) The
next step — taken probably many years later — was to connect the
interval of seventy years with the desolation of the land,
rather than with the disgrace of the sanctuary. Jerusalem and
Judea were pictured as absolutely depopulated during this time,
the whole country containing only uninhabited ruins. In Jer.
25:11 f. and 29:10, 14 we have a plain prediction that the land
will be desolate for seventy years, at the end of which time it
will be peopled again by returning "exiles" (that is, men of the
Diaspora) who will come back to Judea "from all the nations"
whither they have been scattered (29:14; cf. 23:3, 8, 31:8, 32:37,
etc. ) . As a matter of course, the members of the deportation to
Babylonia receive special mention (29:10; cf. 24:5).3 The date
of these passages can only be a matter of conjecture. The con
nection with the seventy years of Zechariah' s prophecy is certainly
not accidental,4 and the altered conception of the period had its
origin in a very natural misunderstanding. Zech. 1:12, with its
mention of the long continued chastisement of Jerusalem and Hie
cities of Judah (see also 7:5, 7!),5 was supposed to refer to the

2 I do not mean to insist on the date of Leviticus 26, cr of any part of it. But it do s
seem to me sure that the idea here expressed, and this very mann r of expressing it,
originated in the time between Zechariah and the ''seventy years" of the pseudo-
Jeremiah (see below). The Chronicler, in II Chron. 36:21 (as already shown), combines
the phrases of Leviticus with the prediction of Jer. 25:11, 29:10, but this is merely on- of
his easy-going misquotations. In Lev. 26 there is no allusion to a return from the Babylonian
exile in particular. The people are scattered through the lands (plural) of their enemies,
and will come very near to perishing there; yet Jerusalem and Judea will at last be
restored to their ancient glory, since Yahwe is not false to his covenant.

3 In the prophesies contained in the book of Jeremiah three distinct classes of
exiles an* taken into consideration from time to time. These are: (1) The "exiles" or
"captives" scattered through all the lands of the Gentile world ; or, in other words, the
Jews of th • great Dispersion. This usage, which is the customary one in all the Old Testa
ment prophets (see below), is the usual one in Jeremiah also. (2) The choice company of
Judean exiles inBabyloni a. So, for example, 24: 5 f., 29:4, 10. (3) The rest of the people
who were carried or driven away from Jerusalem and the vicinity in the time of Nebuch d-
rezzar (II Kings 25:11, 26), who were regarded as the more guilty "remnant" (Jer. 24:8ff.,
29 : 16-19). It was predicted that these should utterly perish. See also below, on Jer. 42, etc.

*If the Jeremianic authorship of the chapters in question were probable on other
grounds, we could hardly refuse to admit the possibility that the prophet was us ng a
round number, and that the twofold mention of a period of seventy years, by Jeremiah and
Zechariah, was merely a remarkable coincidence. But the chapters are obviously much
later than Jeremiah's time; notice, for instance, how 24:1 quotes from II Kings 24 : 14, 6.
As a matter of fact, the view which I have here set forth as to the development of the idea
of the " seventy years," and the dependence of Jer. 25 : 11, etc., on Zechariah, is the one hel 1
by the most recent commentators on these books; see Duhm on Jer. 25:12 and Marti on
Zech. 1:12.

5 As I showed in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1898, pp. 17 f., the correct render
ing of Zech. 7:7 is: "Are not these the words which Yahwe proclaimed through the
former prophets, in the days wh^n Jerusalem and the surrounding cities were still in
quiet, and when the Negeb and the Shephela were still undisturbed?" Cf. the use
of Ht"1 in this same idiom in 1 : 11.

THE EXILE AND THE KESTOEATION 287

devastation of the region. Hence Jer. 25:12, asserting that the
seventy years will be ended by the final overthrow of the Babylo
nian kingdom (that is, by the Persians). It is conceivable that
these passages might even belong to the Chronicler's generation,
but it is easier to suppose that they are older. They seem at any
rate to belong to that late period (presumably either near the end
of the Persian rule, or else after the conquest of Alexander) when
the chronology of the first Persian kings was a matter of some
uncertainty, and it was becoming possible to transpose the
reigns of Cyrus and Darius I.6 (e) Last of all, when the
rivals of the Jews, and in particular the Samaritans, had begun
to use these existing notions of exile and desolation as a most
dangerous weapon, was produced the theory devised and set forth
by those of the school to which the Chronicler belonged. This
theory, which is embodied in the Chronicler's own version of the
Jewish history, and seems also to be presupposed (in less fully
developed form?) in the Aramaic tale which he used, has already
been described at length. According to its terms, all the genuine
institutions and traditions of Israel, and all the "blue blood" of
the old community, were kept safe and unchanged in Babylonia;
while all the elements which had remained in Palestine during
"the exile" became thoroughly heathen and corrupt. Judaism
was "restored" completely by the return of the Babylonian Jews,
who alone constituted the true church, from which "the people
of the lands" were henceforth to be kept uncompromisingly
separate.

In modern Biblical science the Babylonian exile has been
given the central place, and made the dominating factor, in both
the religious and the literary history of the Hebrews. This concep
tion is, in fact, one of the most characteristic features of the critical
theory which in our generation has been elaborated by Wellhausen,
Robertson Smith, and their fellows and successors, and is now held
by all of the more advanced Old Testament scholars. Straight
across the face of Israelite history is drawn a heavy line, the exile,
which is supposed to mark a very abrupt and complete change in
almost every sphere of the people's life. Above the line is what

6 See above, pp. 135 f. It is not likely that the transposition waa made for the sole purpose
of satisfying this theo"v of the seventy years. More probably the Jews had become per
suaded, on other grounds, that a Median kingdom preceded that of the Persians ; an I along
with the new theory had come the name of the monarch, Darius the son of "Ahasuerus"
(Dan. 9:1; originally " Hystaspes?" "Ciaxares?" Joscphus has "Astyages").

288 EZRA STUDIES

is called the "prophetic" period, and below it the "legal" period,
the latter being regarded as altogether inferior to the former.
Before the exile, the great writers and preachers of Israel; after
it, inferior teachers and imitators. In the earlier period, a con
tinuous and admirable development, in national character, litera
ture, and religion; in the later period, a low level at the start,
and a steady decline, in all these respects. The theory of the
exile itself, and of the nature of the "restoration" after it, is
fundamental to these conceptions. According to the accepted
view, the Jews who had been deported to Babylonia prepared the
elaborate ritual code which was to regulate the life of the new
community. And the restored Israel, after the long period of
suspended animation, was a church founded from without, and a
community devoting itself henceforth to the study and practice
of the new ceremonial law.

This is a thoroughly mistaken theory. So far as the Jews of
the Babylonian deportation are concerned, it is not likely that
they ever exercised any considerable influence on the Jews in
Judea. We have no trustworthy evidence that any numerous com
pany returned from Babylonia, nor is it intrinsically likely that
such a return took place. The "priestly law" was neither edited
in Babylonia nor brought to Jerusalem from that country.7
Hebrew literature contains no "exilic" elements. Every part
of our Old Testament was written in Palestine;8 if Jews of the
Dispersion influenced its growth at any point, we have at least no
evidence of the fact. The wider influence of Babylonian (or
Assyrian) life and literature was potent in Judea long before the
sixth century, and the transition to the Persian rule brought no
marked change in this regard. The development of life and
letters and religion in Jerusalem after the great calamity con-

7 No Biblical narrative, it must always be emphasized, asserts or even implies that
Ezra's book of the law originated or received its shape in the foreign land.

? My view in regard to the Second Isaiah, which has been more or less familiar to
sch lars in the United States for ten years past (see, for example, H. P. Smith, Old Testa
ment History, pp. 371, 379; W. H. Cobb, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1908, pp. 5 ,
56, 64} is, briefly, this: The chapters Is. 40-66, together with 34 and 35, are the work of a
single author who wrote in Palestine not far from the middle of the Ptrsian period. The
name "Cyrus" in 45: 1 is interpolated, as is also the whole verse, 44:28. Likewise inser ed
are the words 5^3 and D"H1!UD m 43: 14, 48 : 14, 20. I hope to publish, in the near future, a
volume (the most of which is now ready for the press) setting forth my view of this great
poet and prophet, and giving a brief commentary on his poems. See also below, passim,
and especially p. 314.

Ezekiel I believe to be a pseudepigraphon written in the Greek period. See the intro
ducti n to my "Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel," published in the Transactions of the
Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. XV (1909).

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 289

tinued to be a genuinely native development, in which foreign
elements played — as they always had — a relatively small part.
The outlook of the people was not growing narrower, it was
becoming broader all the time. The religion of Israel — meaning
that of the whole people — was more liberal and more spiritual
in the fourth century than it had been in the fifth ; more so in the
fifth century than it had been in the seventh. The ceremonial
law played no such part in the thought and activities of the people
in general as the modern theory has assumed. The catastrophe
which included the destruction of the temple and the extinction of
the monarchy was indeed a crushing blow, which left its deep
and permanent imprint on the religious literature of the Jews.
But the Dispersion was a calamity which was far more signifi
cant, and whose mark on the heart of Israel was much deeper.
The dissolution of the nation began even before the fall of the
kingdom, and continued at an ominously increasing rate, even
after the building of the second temple. It was the influence of
this fact, more than anything else, that revised the theology
received from the old prophets, and gave it a broader scope : Israel,
the savior of the world, even through its suffering. The monarchy
was not necessary (I Sam. 8), and the community could, and did,
recover from the catastrophe of 586. But the scattering of Israel
to the four corners of the earth meant the death of the nation, and
only the miracle of a second "return from Egypt" (Is. 43:16 ff.,
48:21, etc.,) could restore the dead to life. The people were,
indeed, "purified in the furnace of affliction," and were spiritually
the better for it, after they had once risen to their feet again.
What their religious life suffered in the years immediately follow
ing 586 was merely the temporary arresting of a continuous and
splendid development. They were not crushed to the point of
despair, nor driven into any such selfish exclusiveness as is pictured
in the Chronicler's imaginary history. The prophets and (still
more) the Psalms teach us better than that. The destruction of
the temple was a turning-point, partly for evil, but more for good,
seeing that the nation as a political entity was doomed in any
case. At all events, it was this catastrophe, not the exile,
which constituted the dividing line between the two eras. The
terms "exilic," "pre-exilic," and "post-exilic" ought to be ban
ished forever from usage, for they are merely misleading, and
correspond to nothing that is real in Hebrew literature and life.

290 EZRA STUDIES

II. THE DEPORTATION TO BABYLONIA

When Nebuchadrezzar made his last expedition against Jeru
salem, in the year 586 B. c., he did his work of devastation
thoroughly, sacking the city, razing its walls, and burning the
temple, together with the other principal buildings. He and his
captains also carried away, on this and two other occasions, a con
siderable number of Jews to Babylonia, planting them there as
colonists. The total number of those deported, according to Jer.
52:28-30,9 was 4,600. The majority of them came from Jeru
salem, and they are said to have been chosen from the uppermost
stratum of the people. Taking this statement at its face value,
the most that it can mean is this, that Nebuchadrezzar and his
officers carried away the best that they were able to lay hands on.
The deportation was a small one,10 and even if it really included
the cream of Jerusalem, the life of the city could not have been
endangered by the loss. The question which really meant life
or death was this, whether there were sufficiently strong reasons
why the fugitive masses of the population, who were scattered
about in the neighborhood after the calamity, should return and
rebuild the city after the withdrawal of the Babylonian army.

In regard to the subsequent history of those who were deported,
there can be no question ; like the members of every other depor
tation, they settled down promptly and permanently in their new
surroundings, engaging in every sort of lucrative occupation which
was within their reach, and adopting unreservedly for themselves
and their posterity the country into which they had been trans
planted. We can be reasonably certain, even without direct evi
dence, that within a generation or two the most of the principal
merchants and financiers of the districts round about these colonies
were children of Israel; and that all of the quondam exiles, of
whatever trade or occupation, were hard at work, with the tireless
industry and practical alertness which have always characterized
the race. This is not the traditional view, to be sure. According
to the apologists of the Chronicler's school, the Jewish exiles

9 The source is a late one, but we have nothing better. The detailed enumeration
given makes the impression of being based on good information, and is all the more worth v
of credence because of its disagreement with the exaggerations which ultimately became
current.

10 For example, in the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, chap. 52, the narrator tells how
in the year 502 A. D. the Arab king an-Nu'man deported 18,500 of the people dwelling in the
neighborhood of Harrau. The blow was severe, but the recovery complete, judging from
the subsequent history of the region.

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 291

were so insecurely planted in Babylonia, even after "seventy"
years, that more than forty-two thousand of them could under
take the journey back to Judea. According to the 137th Psalm,
which plainly draws a favorite picture, the sons and daughters of
Zion were held by their captors in an unhappy confinement in
the strange land, like beasts in a cage. They sat by the rivers of
Babylon and wept, while their harps hung silent on the neighbor
ing willows. A well-known writer on Old Testament subjects
has remarked in a recently published volume, that in "the leisure
of the exile" the Jews were able to work out problems for which
they would have had no time in the busy life in Palestine. The
leisure of the exile! The use of this marvellous phrase is of
itself sufficient to show how far removed even the modern current
theory of these events is from any historical possibility. As for
the religious experiences of the exiles, we may be sure of this, at
least, that they very speedily found that they could be faithful
children of Abraham, and acceptable worshipers of the God of
Israel, in a strange land. So their predecessors, who had emi
grated from Palestine into the outside world, had learned; and
so also in later years did the great multitude of the Dispersion
who went forth and remained true to their faith, but never came
back. Of one thing in particular they must have been well per
suaded, namely, that an elaborate ritual was not an essential thing.
If they reflected on the causes of the catastrophe which had over
taken the holy city, they knew very well that their prophets had
always told them the truth in saying that it was their neglect of
the moral law, not of the ceremonial law, which aroused the
wrath of Yahwe. The prescribed ritual was the one thing that
they had observed with tolerable faithfulness. Almost the last
thing in the world that could have interested any of the Jews in
Babylonia was a priestly law to be used in Palestine. There
were doubtless many priests among the exiles; but those who
continued in that profession (they had, in any case, to earn their
living) must have found all their time and strength taken up by
the duties which came to them in the land where they lived.11
This, again, is not the traditional view. It has long been custom
ary to represent the deported colonists as absorbed in the con-

HAs for the ritual of the sanctuary : if the Babylonian Jews had a temple of their own,
then its prierts were certaaily concerned to elaborate a ceremonial law for their own me,
based on their own local praxis. If there was no such temple, we should not expect them
to be concerned with anything of the sort.

292 EZRA STUDIES

templation of "the law;" a view for which the Chronicler is chiefly
responsible. Thus A. Berliner, Beitrage zur Geographic und
Ethnographic Babyloniens im Talmud und Midrasch, 1884, p. 5:
"Bei dem Uberflusse von Datteln in Babylonien waren die Exilir-
ten vor Mangel geschutzt und konnten sich daher ungestort dem
Studium der Thora hingeben." At present, the "captives" are
usually depicted as working away at the material now contained
in the middle books of the Pentateuch, and even as producing a
new written work, a ceremonial law-book12 for Jerusalem, with
an interest which must have been mainly academic, seeing that
they could not have foreseen just what Cyrus, Darius, and Arta-
xerxes were going to do; and could hardly have been so simple-
minded as to suppose that, if the cult of the Jews should be
restored by a gradual renewal of life in Jerusalem and Judea, the
native priests of the sanctuary would ever accept a foreign-made
ritual law in place of their own. Marti, in his Religion des Alien
Testaments, 1906, p. 66, can still repeat without apparent hesita
tion the old theory: "Im Exil, wo man von den Schwierigkeiten
der Verhaltnisse in Jerusalem nicht gedrilckt war, konnte man
die Ordnung, wie sie in der neuen Gemeinde in Jerusalem und
Juda sein sollte, feststellen;" but the idea which this sentence
expresses is as much of a curiosity, in its way, as is that of the
"leisure of the exile," mentioned above. The Hebrews who were
deported by Nebuchadrezzar were doubtless a God-fearing com
pany, in the main, and their subsequent religious history was
probably similar to that of the better Jewish colonists generally,
in all other parts of the world. But we have no literary product
or other record of their religious activity.13

12 But to the questions What book? and How much of the Pentateuch? no one could
now give a plausible answer. It was easy to answer them thirty years ago, when the theory
of the priestly law was comparatively new, and the critical study of the Hebrew legislation
was still in its infancy. I have already remarked (for example, pp. 196 f.) that no evidence
of the exi-tence of a separate "priest code" is to be found. Nor is it possible to suppose
that one or two creative minds produced the body of legislation which is imagined as
" Ezra's book of the law." Precisely t h i s part of the Pentateuch has a literary history which
is "ganz besonders kompliziert " (Cornill, Einleitung^, p. 58, cf. p. 65). Not a few priests,
but many, were at work upon it. What is more, their labors covered a long time, new parts
being added, and revision being again and again undertaken, evidently astheneedsand
growth of an actual praxis required — there is no other reasonable supposition. It
certainly requires a notable exercise of the imagination to create conditions in Babylonia
under which any such variegated ritualistic production would have been natural.

13 We do have mention of a few individuals, belonging to this deported colony, who
remained true to the faith of their fathers — as we could have been sure that the most of
them would. These are Nehemiah (whose ancestors were piesumably among those carried
to Babylonia by Nebuchadrezzar), and the men named in the very difficult passage Zech. 6 : 10.

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 293

III. THE BEGINNING OF THE HEBREW DISPERSION

One very important fact, often overlooked, must always be
kept in mind when the Hebrew "exiles" (voluntary or involun
tary) are under discussion; they were — and knew that they were
— uniformly much better off in the foreign countries than they
could ever have been in the home land. There is evidence
tending to show that even in the latter years of the kingdom the
people became restless and began to emigrate. The most of the
interior of Palestine could no longer support a large population.
Whether deforestation had diminished the rainfall, or other cli
matic changes had taken place, or whether it was merely the case
that unskilful methods of agriculture, continued through centuries,
had exhausted the soil, at all events the land no longer flowed with
milk and honey. Even at its best it had not been an agricultural
paradise. It was indeed a sacred territory, and Jerusalem was
the city chosen of Yah we ; but not all the children of Israel could
live in Jerusalem, nor in Judea, nor even to the best advantage in
Palestine, under the new conditions. But far more important
than any change in the land was the change in the people. The
time had gone by when they could be satisfied with agricultural
pursuits, and the drift toward city life had begun, a movement
steadily increasing in volume. Jerusalem itself was small, and
obviously incapable of any considerable growth. It was perched
on a waterless rock, in a relatively barren region; had no impor
tant industries, nor the means of supporting any; and was not
even a station of great importance in the caravan trade of the
region. Zion was doubtless "the joy of the whole earth" to any
devout Israelite who was in the psalm-writing mood; but large
families cannot be supported on religious enthusiasm alone, and
men of energy and enterprise must go where they can find oppor
tunity. Those who first wandered forth were quick to see that
each one of such great cities as Babylon, Nineveh, Ecbatana,
Hamath, Tyre, Memphis, and Thebes had a true claim to be called
the joy of the whole earth ; and as for the God of Israel, they
found — as their brethren have always found, and still find — that
they could carry him with them. That is why the emigrants,
early and late, did not return to the. holy land. The same thing
was happening t^en which -has taken place countless times in
history, wherever peoples who have long dwelt quietly in their

294 EZRA STUDIES

own secluded land are awakened by the stir of new life from
without, see a new day dawning, find themselves outside the main
currents of progress and achievement, and see great enterprises
actually within their reach, if they will but go forth to the centers
of activity. The Hebrews were by nature both worldly-wise and
energetic, and saw clearly that the future of the world of affairs
did not rest with Palestine.1* Neither patriotism nor religious
beliefs ever kept, or could keep, such people at home, when they
have once heard the call of the greater world, and the spirit of the
new age has come upon them.

It is not always easy to date the beginning of an era, and the
history of the first stage of the Hebrew .Dispersion is, as might
be expected, very obscure.15 It was not merely the advance of
the Assyrian armies into Palestine that set the peoples of that
land in commotion; other causes, partly unknown to us, were at
work. In the eighth century B. c. the great colonizing move
ment of the Phoenicians was in full swing. By the end of the
century, all the countries around the eastern end of the Mediter
ranean were in a ferment, and migratory currents were flowing in
all directions as perhaps never before. The great cities of Asia
Minor had been founded, and the Greek peoples, now beginning
their marvellous renascence, were flocking to the Ionian coast, as
well as in other directions. Then, as the next step, the doors of
Egypt were opened wide to foreign colonists, Psametik I (663—609)
adopting this new and very significant policy. Both Greek and
Asiatic traders and emigrants poured in. "Phoenician galleys
filled the Nile mouths, and Semitic merchants, forerunners of the
Aramaeans so numerous in Persian times, thronged the Delta"
(Breasted, History of the Ancient Egyptians, 1908, p. 398). It
was in this seventh century, so far as we can judge, that the
inland peoples of Syria and Palestine were thoroughly awakened
and began to play a noteworthy part in the general movement.
Several important invasions from the north, coming at just this

^Thus the prophet Amos (6:1 ff.), and no doubt many had said the same thing before
him. asserting the relative insignificance of Israel : k' Woo to the secure in Zion, the confident
in the mountain of Samaria ! They (the Assyrians) have plucked off (^Sp2 with the Greek)
the foremost of the nations, and will come to you (read Q3b)i O house of Israel. Passover
to Calneh, and see; and go thence to Hamath the great; thence go down to Gath of the
Philistines; are ye better than these kingdoms, or is your territory greater than theirs?"
(transposing the suffixes). I can see no reason whatever for supposing vs. 2 to be an inter
polation.

15 Of course there had been occasional minor Hebrew migrations and colonies from the
very first ; but I am speaking of the great movement which affected the whole land.

THE EXILE AND THE KESTOKATION 295

time, added their influence; first came the great campaigns of
Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, and then followed the inroad of
the Scythians, who appeared in the year 624 and swept through
the land. We have every reason, then, to give credence to the
statement found in the Letter of Aristeas, that the army of Psametik
(II?), in a certain campaign against the Ethiopians, contained
Jewish mercenaries. The gradual outflow from Judea which
later assumed such proportions must already have begun. When
the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, a large
body of Jews fled to Egypt, as might have been expected (see
II Kings 25:26, Jer. 43:4-7). The words which are put into
the mouth of these fugitives by one of the Old Testament writers
(Jer. 42:14) had probably been uttered by many of their prede
cessors: "We will go into the land of Egypt, where we shall see
no more war, nor hear the sound of the trumpet, nor hunger for
bread ; and there will we dwell." Numerous colonies were founded
(see, for example, Jer. 44:1), some of them doubtless earlier than
this migration of the year 586. At Elephantine, as we have
recently learned, an imposing temple was built, in which the
worship of Yah we was carried on faithfully according to the
Mosaic law.

In Babylonia there were Hebrews in large numbers at least
since the deportations by Tiglathpileser III (734) and Sargon
(27,290 inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom carried away to
Mesopotamia and Media in 722). Of these captives also, like the
most of the remainder of the early Dispersion, in all parts of the
world, we have thenceforward no sure trace. They of course
became good citizens of their adopted countries, used to the
utmost the new opportunities, and were in increasing extent
assimilated with the surrounding peoples. How faithful they
were to Yah we, the God of Israel, we have no means of knowing;
nor can we even guess to what extent their descendants could or
did co-operate with the Judean captives deported by Nebuchad
rezzar.16 As regards voluntary Jewish emigration to Babylonia,

16 Among the eastern Semites, religious differences often completely override identity
of race; and if the Hebrews of the Southern Kingdom really held, at the beginning of the
sixt h century, the extreme view of the apostasy of their Northern brethren which is expressed
everywhere by the (later) editor of the books of Kings, we might well believe that the mem
bers of the second great group of deported exiles would show little interest in the fortunes
of their predecessors, evi^. if they were able to come in contact with them. But we know
that the people of Israel claimed to be worshipers of Yahwe, and it is likely that the people
of Juclah acknowledged them to be such, while both kingdoms were still standing.

296 EZRA STUDIES

before the downfall of Jerusalem, we have at present no informa
tion at all. It would be strange, indeed, if some considerable
companies of colonists had not turned their faces thither in the
seventh century, under the conditions described above. It is true
that the principal streams of migration at that time ran from
north to south, but there were also counter currents. Hebrew
names, in large number, are found in the Babylonian business
documents of the Persian period. It does not by any means fol
low, as some have hastily concluded, that these are the names of
Jews of "the Captivity"-— meaning the colonists deported in the
time of Nebuchadrezzar. No tidings have reached us of any
temple built by Jews in Babylonia. The existence of such
temples is certainly possible, perhaps even probable; see further
below.

But the Nile valley and the lands east of the Euphrates were
by no means the only countries which offered great opportunities'
to enterprising Palestinian colonists. If we could read the his
tory of Phoenicia, Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Greek islands
and shores, in this early period, we should doubtless find that the
waves of migration in the seventh century and thereafter carried
some Jews to each of these regions, and to still others as well.
Upon the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, fugitive com
panies swarmed forth in all directions. Many were only trying
to escape the immediate danger, and soon found their way back;
but a large number, certainly, continued their flight into foreign
parts, and never returned. After the restoration of Jerusalem,
moreover, the stream of emigration from all Judea continued to
flow ominously, and the Jewish settlements in foreign lands grew
steadily larger. These were the "exiles" of whom the Old
Testament prophets are constantly speaking, and whose
removal from the holy land they mourn as the deadliest
blow to Israel; those who were in "the north, the south,
the east, and the west;" see, for example, Is. 11:11 f., 43:5 f.
("I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the
west; I will say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Keep
not back; bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the
end of the earth"), 49:12, 60:4-9 (ships of Tarshish will bring
back the exiles); Jer. 23:8, 29:14, 31:8, 32:37; Zech. 2:6, 8:7,
and many similar passages. The Babylonian captives of 597-586
were but a small part of the whole, and it is not often that they

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 297

are mentioned separately, save by the pseudo- Jeremiah and the
Chronicler. Such terms as "captivity" (^2123) and "exile" (XW3)
are frequently used in speaking of the Jewish Dispersion in
general, and the usage persisted for many centuries.17

IV. THE REVIVING OF JERUSALEM

It was this sinister combination of involuntary and voluntary
exile that made the restoration such a very difficult matter. The
devastation wrought by Nebuchadrezzar, terrible as it was, would
have left plenty of hope of a speedy recovery, in a city of great
natural resources. The neighboring city of Sidon was repeatedly
wiped out of existence (in the year 350 B. c., for instance, with
the slaughter of 40,000 of its citizens and the total obliteration of
the city itself), but it always arose again immediately from its
ashes, and was soon as proud and powerful as ever. If there is a
potent reason for the existence of a city on a certain spot, it is
very hard to stamp out its life utterly. After each catastrophe,
returning fugitives, re-enforced by adventurers, are likely to put
in an appearance very soon, unless they are kept away by force.
So it was with Jerusalem. The essential fact which insured its
continuity of life was the sacred rock on the eastern hill.
Far fewer people are drawn by the magnetism of a cultic rallying
point than by that of an important commercial or industrial site;
but the attractive force exerted on the few, by the religious motive,
is much stronger than the other. We know very little of the
history of Jerusalem and its neighborhood during the century
beginning with the destruction of Solomon's temple; but we are
at least sure of these two things, that the site was soon occupied
again, and that the principal reason for the revival of the city
was the existence of the ancient holy place, holier yet than the
temple which had been built upon it.

In II Kings 25:26 it is said that upon the assassination of
Gedaliah "all the people, both small and great," fled to Egypt.
This is also the Chronicler's way of looking at the matter, the
entire population of Jerusalem and the neighboring towns removed

17 Thus in an official letter of Rabbi Gamaliel the younger (beginning of second century
A. D.), published in Dalman, Aramdische Dialektproben, p. 3, wo read the superscription:
" To our brethren the men of the captivity (SHI 53 "03) of Babylonia, those of the captivity
of Media, those of the captivity of Greece ("p"1*!) and all the rest of the Dispersion
(Xm53 , ' captivities ') ; your peace be multiplied." In each and all of these expressions,
he is referring to Jews who had gone forth voluntarily and formed trading colonies.

298 EZRA STUDIES

to Babylonia and Egypt, so that none remained in the land, or
could return to it. Thus, too, the traditional view, which is still
formally held fast by most students of the Old Testament, assert
ing that Jerusalem and the cities of Judah continued to be nearly
or quite deserted for forty-nine years. Of late, especially since
Kosters' renewal of the argument against the historicity of the
return under Cyrus, scholars in increasing number have been dis
posed to modify the extreme theory to the extent of admitting
that some of the inhabitants of the city and its vicinity remained
near at hand after the catastrophe, and either themselves began,
or else assisted in, the work of restoration.18 This, to be sure, is
not at all the Chronicler's view; as he tells the story, the popula
tion of Judea in the Persian period consisted solely of the returned
Babylonian exiles and the heathen of the land (including
heathenized Jews), with whom the pure blood of Israel must not,
and did not, mix.19 His theory, as shown in the preceding
chapters, is artificial and contrary both to our other evidence and
to reason. As for the statement in II Kings 25:26, which was
partly responsible for the theory elaborated by the Chronicler, it
is merely the usual, and very natural, exaggeration. A large
company fled to Egypt at this time, no doubt, joining the Jews
who were already in that land; but other companies fled in other
directions, and — most important of all — a very large number
must have taken temporary refuge in the immediate or
more remote neighborhood. This is just what had happened
a few months earlier, when the Babylonians made their last attack
on the city, according to Jer. 40-43. Thus we read in 40:11 f . :
"When all the Jews that were in Moab, and among the children

18 Thus Wellhausen, Nachrichten von der Konigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Gtittingen, 1895, pp. 185 f . : "Man hat bei der Restauration zu sehr ausser Acht gelassen,

das doch ein starker Bodensatz der altenBevOlkerung sich noch im Lande vorfand An

den massgebenden Kern der Gola muss sich vielmehr ein grosser Teil der im Lande verblie-
benen BevQlkerung angeschlossen und sich in die Cadres ihrer Geschlechter eingegliedert
haben."

19 For the sake of enforcing this lesson — and especially for the effectual discomfiture
of the Samaritans — he represents the "exiles" as having twice sinned in this respect, and
shows how they were punished. Just before the reform of " Ezra," a considerable number
of the people, from all classes, married heathen wives. But after taking a complete census,
the work of which occupied several months, all of these wives, with 1 heir children, were
banished. And again, when Nehemiah is made by the Chronicler to complete some of Ezra's
work of reform, a few Jews are said to have broken the solemn covenant of all Israel (Neh.
10) by marrying women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab (Neh. 13:23 ff.)« This time, also, the
remedial measures were effective, for Nehemiah says in vs. 30: " Thus I cleansed them from
all strangers." The seed of Israel was not contaminated to any appreciable extent, and
only the men of the Babylonian captivity took part in the restoration, according to the
rigidly consistent representation in Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah.

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 299

of Ammon, and in Edom, and that were in all the countries, heard
that the king of Babylon had left a remnant of Judah, and that
he had set over them Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of
Shaphan; then all the Jews returned out of all places whither
they had been driven, and came to the land of Judah." The
same thing is said in briefer compass in 43:5. Whatever may
have been the source of this information,20 the course of events
here described is just what is usual when cities are sacked and
destroyed ; the majority of the inhabitants .flee into the neighbor
ing country, and return from time to time, in straggling bands,
when it is safe to do so. The removal of this multitude of tem
porary refugees from Jerusalem to the nearest surrounding
countries must have been extended over some time ; and their
return to Judea cannot possibly have been accomplished in the
way stated (though the words were perhaps not intended to be
taken strictly) in Jer. 40:11 f., 41:10-17, 43:5 f.— as though "all
the Jews in Moab, Ammon, Edom, and all the countries" could
have returned to Judea, moving as one man, in less than two
months' time (it might easily have taken a month or two for them
even to learn of the appointment of Gedaliah), and as though
they could have been led about thereafter in the manner described.
What is probable — and we have nothing bat probability to guide
us at this point — is that the majority of the fleeing inhabitants
of Jerusalem and the neighboring towns took up their temporary
quarters in the nearest regions where they could be both safe and
comfortable; that they did this in the hope of returning eventu
ally ; and that the most of them did actually return, some coming
soon and others following later, in larger or smaller companies.
Regarding the probable character and quality of these returning
fugitives, several things are to be said. (1) According to
II Kings 24:15 f.,21 the deportation in 597 included a large part
of the best men of the land; but it is plain from subsequent pas
sages of the same account (as well as from the numbers given in
Jer. 52) that the majority of this upper stratum — nobles, war
riors, craftsmen — escaped the fate of their brethren.22 As has

20 The account in these chapters seems to me to give evidence of dependence on
II Kings 25, and there are plenty of marks indicating that it originated at a time much later
than the events described.

21 The two verses 13 f., in this chapter, are regarded by the most recent commentators
as a later and mistake-1 addition to the text; see, for example, Benzinger, Comm., and
Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift des A. T.

22 According to Jer. 52:28, which is generally regarded as the most probable statement
of the kind, the total number of this deportation was 3,023.

300 EZRA STUDIES

already been remarked, Nebuchadrezzar took only what he was
able to lay hands on — and the best are most likely to escape.
(2) The sortie from the city, at the end of the final siege in 586,
included the king and " all the men of war," II Kings 25 :4 f. The
king himself was captured by the Babylonians, near Jericho, but
"all his army was scattered from him," probably into the regions
beyond the Jordan. It is to be presumed that many of the most
noble and influential men in Jerusalem left the city in this night
expedition with their king. (3) We have information, more
or less valuable, concerning some of the royal house who survived
all these calamities of sword and captivity. Ishmael ben Nethaniah,
"of the seed royal," was among those who fled to the Ammonites
( Jer. 41 :15) . Certain daughters of King Zedekiah are mentioned
in Jer. 41 :10 and 43 : 6, as belonging to the company that eventually
migrated to Egypt.23 And finally, Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, who
appears to have been the offspring of one of these fugitives,24 may
be included here, if the Chronicler's statement, that he belonged
to the house of David, can be given any credence.25 (4) At all
events, the companies returning to the site of the ruined city
included many of the most devoted adherents of the religion of
Israel (compare what was said above, on this point). In shortr
if we give our sources a fair hearing, taking into account all their
statements and not merely a few of them, we find that they do
not require us to suppose that those who escaped the armies of
Nebuchadrezzar and soon returned to their old home formed a
community essentially different from those which under similar
circumstances have rebuilt other cities, in various parts of the
world. If we could learn the truth in regard to the brave few
who first ventured back and stood by the ashes of the temple, and
the much larger company of those who were striving to restore
the city, a dozen years after it had been destroyed,26 we should

23 It is likely that these "daughters" are merely an improvement on the narrative of
Kings, where the king's sons are mentioned (25:7), but nothing is said about the rest of his
household. In general, the longer and much more circumstantial account contained in these
chapters of Jeremiah makes the impression of being merely the result of embroidery on the
story told in II Kings.

2*Kostors, Wiedrrherstellung, has already argued very forcibly that Zerubbabel and
Joshua cannot b'» regarded, according to the evidence contained in Haggai and Zechariah,.
as having come to Jerusalem from the exiles in Babylonia. See also below, regarding this
point.

25 According to the Chronicler, in II Chron. 3:19, Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah,
and nephew of Shealtiel.

26 We do not know, to be sure, just how much of Jerusalem was destroyed. II Kings
25: 9 says that the Babylonians burned "the temple, the palace, and every great house"'
(the words obTUTV1 ^fG ^ P&O must of course be regarded as a later addition to the

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 301

certainly find that the very best elements of the people — the
nobility, the clergy, the men of influence and enterprise — were
well represented.27

For the period lying between the great catastrophe of 586 and
the reign of Darius Hystaspis we are absolutely reduced to infer
ence and conjecture, so far as the fortunes of Jerusalem are con
cerned. No historical source now known gives us any direct
testimony. New light has recently been thrown on the history
of one of the Jewish colonies in Egypt, in this period. The
papyrus document found at Elephantine tells of the great temple
of Yahwe there, built by the Jews, and declares that it was in
existence when Cambyses entered the land. It was built, then,
as early as the reign of Cyrus, perhaps even considerably earlier.
In regard to the relation of this temple to the one in Jerusalem
more will be said in the sequel.

V. THE RENEWAL OF THE WORSHIP

1. Untrustworthy Narratives

The story of the restoration of the Jewish worship in Jerusa
lem by Cyrus, at the beginning of his reign, makes its first appear
ance in the Aramaic tale which the Chronicler has incorporated.
This tale, as I have shown, dates from the third century B. c., and
is just as untrustworthy as the Chronicler's own "history," because
composed with the same purpose. But the reason why the story
of the restoration by Cyrus cannot be used in a serious history of
Israel is not simply that it is found in an untrustworthy source,
but also this, that its artificial origin is obvious. The strong
feeling against Babylon was a matter of course, and the overthrow
of the Babylonian power was hoped for in Jerusalem. Cyrus was
presumably hailed as the rod of chastisement in the hand of Yahwe.
The Jews had a feeling of gratitude toward him, and whether he
ever did anything for them or not, the next generation could not
have failed to have a tradition to the effect that when he overthrew

text; there is no other way of explaining the verso). A large part of the city, then, was
still habitable. The wall was of course broken down (vs. 10), but not wholly, see especially
Neh. 4:1.

27 Nehemiah, in 1:2 f., speaks of "those Jews who had escaped, who were left of the
captivity," living both in Jerusalem and elsewhere "in the province." As he makes no
mention here or elsewh^e of any Jews who had returned from Babylonia to
J u d e a , it is fair to infer that the " priests, noble?, and rulers " (2 : 16, 4 : 8, 5 : 7, etc.) whom
he found in the city were of the fugitives who escaped the army of Nebuchadrezzar.

302 EZRA STUDIES

the Babylonian enemies of Israel, he also gave the Jews some
positive tokens of his favor.28 "Cyrus the deliverer," then, was
an idea which in any case considerably antedated the third cen
tury B. c. To this was soon added the notion of the "seventy
years" intervening between the destruction and the deliverance,
as already explained. Thus Jer. 25:12: "When seventy years
are completed, I will visit upon the king of Babylon, and upon
that nation, their iniquity," etc. And 29:10, addressing the Jews
of the Babylonian deportation:29 "When seventy years are com
pleted for Babylon, I will .... bring you back to this place."
And finally, by the transposition of the reigns of Cyrus and
Darius I, the promised deliverance after seventy years had
been made to coincide with the beginning of the Persian rule.30
Thus it is plain that the materials for the story31 told by the
Chronicler and his Aramaic-writing predecessor were ready to
hand, by the time when they wrote; and this fact adds its own
great weight to the evidence — already sufficiently strong — against
the trustworthiness of the stories regarding the favor shown to
the Jews by Cyrus.

The same thing is true of the similar account of aid given by
Darius. It has the same notorious origin, and the manner of
its genesis is equally obvious. Given the story of Cyrus, and the
Jewish chronology current in the third century B. c., with its
"Darius the Mede;" and the narrative contained in Ezra, chaps.
4-6, follows almost as a matter of course. If Cyrus aided the
Jews, and even expressly ordered the building of the temple, how

28 We find such "traditions," for example, even in the case of Alexander the Great,
though tho Jews had no such feeling of enmity toward the Persians, whose yoke he removed
from them.

29 Bear in mind, however, that elsewhere in this chapter the very same thing is sa d to
the other "exiles" belonging to all parts of the great Dispersion among the nations. See
above.

30 This transposition certainly involved no change in the current idea of the deliverance
from the Babylonian yoke. "Darius the Mede" became lord of the Babylonian empire,
according to this belated theory, but not as a h e ro known to popular legend. It
is obvious that the Jews can have heard no tales in regard to his chastisement of Babylon,
or his campaigns through Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. He simply " received the kingd< >m "
(Dan. 6:1). The "Modes and Persians, "acting in concert, overthrew the power of Belshazzar,
and the Median king was the first to enjoy the fruit, but not because of his prowess in
this conquest. But with Cyrus it was very different. Even Herodotus believed that he
took Babylon by force, and the fame of his campaigns was spread (with the inevitable exag
geration) throughout Western Asia. It was to him, always, that the " everlasting devasta
tion " (Dbiy m'Q'QlZJ , Jr. 25:12) of the conquered land was attributed. So whether
Darius the Mede was put before Cyrus the Persian, or not, it was only the latter whom
the Jews looked upon as their deliverer. See also p. 155, note 25.

31 But not the story itself. Not even in the pseudo- Jeremiah is there any place for such
a picture of events as that which is given us by these two writers of the third century.

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 303

did it happen that it was neither built, nor in process of building,
at the beginning of the reign of Darius Nothus, something like a
hundred years later?*2 Why did Zerubbabel and Jeshua "arise
and begin to build" at this late date? The natural answer was,
that they had been hindered, by hostile intervention, from
beginning any sooner. Jewish pride and religious devotion
could not have conceived any other solution than this. The
renewed effort to build, described by the two prophets, must have
been the result of a royal edict, putting an end to the forcible
restraint previously in effect ever since the early part
of the reign of Cyrus. Add the ever-present hostility of the
Samaritans and their allies, and the whole of the material of the
Aramaic narrative is provided.

2. Conditions at the Time of Haggai and Zechariah

The two brief prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah give us a
glimpse of conditions in Jerusalem at the beginning of the reign
of Darius I Hystaspis,33 and they are our first and only sure
source of information between Nebuchadrezzar and Nehemiah.
The details which we are able to glean from these two prophecies
suffice to give us a tolerably clear general idea of the conditions
in which they originated. One thing becomes more and more
certain, as we read; the community in which Haggai and Zecha
riah lived was not made up chiefly, or even largely, of recently
returned exiles; no such event as the Chronicler's "restoration"
can have taken place only seventeen years before the two preachers
began the work of which we have the record.

The time is one of quiet and expectancy (Zech. 1: 11). For
a long time past, the people have been struggling along, making
some gain in a material way, but with their expectation as the
chosen people sadly disappointed. Quite a measure of pros
perity has been reached, both in the city itself and in the land
round about — though in some things, notably agriculture, their
success has not been such as they could have expected ; but their
religious prosperity has for many years seemed to be almost at
a standstill. In 1 : 12 the angel of Yah we is represented as saying;
"How long, O Yahw6 of Hosts, wilt thou not have mercy on

32 According to their Chronology, tho " Darius " named in Haggai and Zechariah could
only be Darius II. TL y may not, indeed, have believed the interval to bo as long as one
hundred years.

33 Hag. 2:3 (notice especially the position of the word nn^) seems to make this certain.

304 EZRA STUDIES

Jerusalem and the cities of Judea, at which thou hast been angry
these seventy years?" That is, for seventy years past Yahwe has
not shown his people any special favor. Imagine the prophet
saying this to a community which only a few years before (accord
ing to the story told by the school to which the Chronicler
belonged) had seen Yahwe "turn its captivity" in a manner
worthy to be put beside the deliverance from Egypt! But though
Israel has long seemed to be forsaken by its God, yet now a
change for the better is promised, and the people themselves, by
their own altered conduct, are to bring it about. The question
of their prosperity (the prophet would say) rests with them alone.
Yahwe is always ready, but waits for his people to do their duty.
They have long been selfish and negligent; the temple should
have been restored some time ago, but they have been willing to
postpone the building. When they have done this one significant
thing, Yahwe will bless them spiritually, and will also increase
their material welfare (Hag. 2: 15-19; cf. Zech. 8: 9-12). The
extent to which a considerable part of the population had been
dependent on the yield of the soil is indicated by Haggai espe
cially. It is also plain, from his words, that they have been engaged
in agriculture for a long time. During the more recent past,
things have not gone so well as during the more remote past
within their memory. They had been wont to expect so and so
much from the wine vat and the oil press, but in the recent years
only a part of the customary amount has been yielded (Hag.
2: 15 f.).34 It is important to observe, however, that in spite of
this long-continued shortage of their crops, the people whom
Haggai addresses are living in such comfortable condition that
the prophet can reproach them, collectively, with their short
sighted selfishness in enjoying a measure of luxury in their own
fine houses, while the worship of Yahwe is carried on in a miser
ably inadequate structure (1:4). All this appears to describe
the circumstances of a people occupying a land where both they
and their fathers before them have been dwelling in security and
reaping some good fruit of their labor. Two generations had
elapsed since the devastation of the province, and within that
time much that was lost had been regained. The great evil,
overshadowing all others, is the same one which is lamented by

3* In vs. 16, iustead of DniTTQ we must of course read, with the Greek, BPP^n ^
or 'H r"P2i "How did it fare with you?" (the same idiom which is found in Ruth 3: 16 and
elsewhere).

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 305

all the other later prophets, the Dispersion. Israel has been
scattered to the four winds (Zech. 2:10, 12). The comforting
promise is, that at last the exiles shall be brought back "from
the east and from the west" (8:7). Yah we will punish all the
nations which are holding and oppressing his children (1 : 15,
2:12 f.).

Those to whom Zechariah and Haggai are speaking have been
observing the public worship of Yahwe in the time-honored
manner, with the usual sacrifices and cremonies, but in a HIST f"T2
whose appearance and equipment have become a shame to them.
A temporary structure had been erected some time ago, on the
sacred site, and the majority of the people are still willing to
continue in the use of this makeshift. Haggai says: "Is it a
time for you to dwell in your ceiled houses, while this house lieth
in ruins?" (1:4). The same thing is implied in 1:2, which
quotes the people as saying: "The time for building the house
of Yahwe is not yet come." It is hardly necessary to insist that
no one would have said this at a time wlien no house of Yahwe
was in existence, while the people were comfortably housed.
What they were saying was: "The building which we have
will do for some time longer." Certain passages in Zechariah
indicate the same thing. In 3:8 it is implied that Jeshua and
the priests "who dwell in his presence" are, and have been,
in the regular service of the sanctuary. So also in 7:2 f., where
men have been sent from a distance to inquire at the temple, of
"the priests who belong to the house of Yahwe of Hosts." And
finally, in Hag. 2:10-14, dated in the second year of Darius,
there is express mention of the temple sacrifices ("that which
they offer there;" vs. 14). The cult had of course not ceased in
Jerusalem during all these years since the city had been re-
peopled.

VI. GENERAL SUMMARY, 586 TO 444 B.C.

We may therefore sketch the course of events from the date
of the destruction of the temple until that of its restoration in the
time of Darius I as follows. Soon after the army of Nebuchad
rezzar had withdrawn from Judea, companies of returning fugi
tives began to show themselves in the neighborhood of Jerusalem.
In a short time, the work of bringing back life to the ruined city
had begun. The many whose homes had not been destroyed

306 EZRA STUDIES

returned to them, while others strove to rebuild and repair. One
of the first undertakings, of course, after something like a settled
life had been reached, was the erection of a temporary house for
the worship of Yahwe, on some part of the site of Solomon's
temple. The condition of the people, it is needless to say, was
most wretched at first, and improved but slowly. Agriculture
was the main stay in the beginning, and by slow degrees a few
industries and a struggling trade grew up. One generation passed
away, and their children carried on the work. The city grew
constantly larger. By the beginning of the Persian period, fifty
years after the great calamity, something like prosperity had been
restored; and a little later, in the time of Darius Hystaspis, the
people were rebuked and incited by Haggai, Zechariah, and per
haps other prophets, until they undertook to build a worthy
temple in place of the temporary house. The high priest at that
time was Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, while the recognized leader
of the people was Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel.35 The work
of building the new temple began in the second year of Darius,
on the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month (Hag. 1:14 f., cf.
Zech. 1:1, 15 if.), that is, in the year 520 B.C. How soon it
was finished, we do not know; the date given in Ezr. 6:15 seems

35 It is not likely that Zerubbabel was governor of Judea. The prophery of
Zechariah says nothing which would indicate this, while in every one of the four passages
in Haggai where he is given the titlo (1:1, 14; 2:2, 21) comparison of the Greek shows
that the words miH"1 nflD are a later interpolation in the Hebrew. The title
•would never have been thus deliberately removed from any text, Hebrew or Greek; but
the interpolation of it would be most natural in consequence of Ezr. 6:7. The Aramic nar
rator concluded, from the prominence given to Zerubbabel in both Haggai and Zechariah,
that he was the governor; but if this had really been the case, some passage in the one or
the other of the two prophets would have been likely to give him his title.

The "Sheshbazzar" of the Aramaic story, often identified with Zerubbabel, may also
be considered here. He was created by the narrator in order to show that Cyrus was in
earnest with his decree, and that a beginning was really made. (The name was as easily
found as was Daniel's Persian name, " Belteshazzar.") According to the Aramaic narra
tive, he preceded Zerubbabel by at least two generations. He "laid the foundation " of t h e
first build ing on the site of the tern pie ruin; Zerubbabel "laid the foundation " of the
permanent structure which was built in the days of Haggai and Zechariah. The
Chronicler, on the other hand, made Zerubbabel's career begin in the time of Cyrus (see pp.
59 f.) ! He therefore either believed the interval before Darius II to be shorter than it actu
ally was, or else supposed his heroes to have lived to a great age. As for Sheshbazzar, he
apparently preferred to ignore him, after the first necessary mention (necessary because of
Ezr. 5 : 14-16). It is not likely that he identified him with Zerubbabel, for if he had done so
he would have been pretty sure to make this important fact plain. As has already been
observed, when he has occasion to mention the governor of Judea in the time of the
return under Cyrus, he does not commit himself, but simply employs the title
"Tirshatha" (see above, p. 263). It was inevitable that some at a later date should make
the identification of Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel; in the first place, because both are
styled "governor" of Judea in the Aramaic narrative, and then are made contemporaries
by the Chronicler; and in the second place, because of the comparison of Ezr. 5: 16 with
Zech. 4:9. Hence the identification, by means of an explanatory interpolation, in I Esdr.
6:18.

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 307

to be the Chronicler's (see p. 158), and we have every reason to
hold aloof from such information of his furnishing.36

At the time when the temple was rebuilt, the wall of the city
was still lying in ruins (Zech. 2:5-9). About seventy years
later, in the reign of Artaxerxes I (probably; see below), a
singular turn of events brought about the restoring of this wall.
The story of Nehemiah is a strange one; but in such an environ
ment as the Persian court truth is often stranger than fiction.
We have at present no reason to reject the account given us by
the book of Nehemiah in its original form.37

VII. THE RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT

During all this time, while Israel's external prosperity was
being restored, a most significant development of the spiritual
life of the people was taking place; a development which had
begun long ago, and which was destined to bring forth a most
important part of the nation's religious contribution to the world.
The Jews of the second temple were, indeed, a community broken
in spirit ; but we may easily exaggerate their discouragement, and
overestimate the suddenness of the change in their circumstances.
Nothing could have been more bitter, it is true, than the expe
rience of the years 597—586; but the humiliation had begun before
Nebuchadrezzar's conquest. The people had already been made
to see how the "chosen of Yah we" was doomed to be a vassal,
and a mere cipher among the nations. Their life under Persian
governors was not very different from what it had been under
their own powerless and tributary kings, in the later years of the
monarchy. And this, as has already been remarked, was only a
part, and the less important part, of their humiliation. The dis
integration and scattering of Israel meant more than any merely
temporary reverses. The loss of four or five thousand of their
best men by deportation was not a vital matter, nor was the burn
ing of the temple. Vacant places can be filled in a surprisingly
short time, and temples can be rebuilt. But the breaking up
of the nation which bore the name of Abraham, and

36 The latest date given in Zechariah is the fourth year of Darius (7:1), and it does not
appear that the temple was finished at that time, so far as we can judge from the lack of
any mention of the fact in Zech. 7 and 8.

37 That is, substantially, chaps. 1, 2, and 4-6. Some bits in these chapters also, however,
are from the hand of tuo Chronicler, and the task of recognizing them is one of some impor
tance and considerable difficulty. I am far from supposing that I have said the last word
in my own suggestions regarding the analysis (above, pp. 225 f.).

308 EZRA STUDIES

had received the splendid promises, all of which seemed
to attach themselves to the holy land, apparently
meant the loss of the whole inheritance. How could this
people come into possession of the blessings assured by Yahwe,
when it was divided among the four corners of the earth ? How
could it ever be the leader among the nations, when the part of it
which still held to the soil of Palestine was, and to all appearance
must ever be, in this present age, a mere "remnant?" As has
already been said, the vast majority of the "exiles" did not return
to the home-land. Why should they have done so, even if it had
been possible? They knew that they could make better use of
their powers, and better serve the world, in the countries to which
they had emigrated. Their attitude was a matter of course,
from the beginning; but what was more important was the attitude
of those who remained behind in Palestine, the custo
dians of the temple, the true nucleus of Israel, those who wrote
and preserved for us the later books of the Old Testament. At
first, no doubt, they used every effort to stem the tide, and even
may have denounced their brethren as deserters; but the utter
fruitlessness of all such efforts must soon have become apparent.
As reasonable beings, they could only understand and acquiesce;
and as interpreters of the faith of the fathers it was theirs to see
whatever light they could in the rapidly darkening outlook. We
see, in the documents which have survived, no censure of the
emigrating Hebrews, only lament for the bitter necessity which
drove them out of the land.38 They are always spoken of as
"exiles" and as "driven out," banished and held captive against
their will. And this, under the circumstances, was the only just
view. Those who went forth were indeed loyal Jews, and they
did go under a real compulsion. Those who remained at home
would never have counseled the wanderers to return; in fact, they
could hardly even have wished them to do so. To what should
they return? The land was not able to support them all, nor was
it desirable that the Jews who could do something better should
be limited to tilling the poor soil and carrying on the few and
inferior native industries. As for the multitude of abandoned
farms, they were speedily taken up by men of another sort. In

38 The writer of Jer. 42 looked upon the fugitives to Egypt after the assassination of
Gedaliah as deserving especial rebuke for their desertion of the land at this (in his view)
most critical juncture. But this is an altogether unique case, having nothing to do with
any censure of the emigrants in general.

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 309

this particular, also, the history of that movement in Judea has
been repeated many times in our own day; foreigners of a lower
grade of civilization, men of few needs and great physical endur
ance, are always ready to step in where the way is thus opened.
First Edomites, pressing in from the south, then other peoples
from across the Jordan and from Philistia, and afterward swarms
of Nabatean peasants, entered the districts which the Jews were
vacating.39 This, again, was a change which was most painful to
the devout Hebrews. The God of their fathers had promised the
land to them ; why then were foreigners permitted to pour in and
occupy it? The words of Joel 4:176 are typical: "Then Jeru
salem shall be holy, and strangers shall not pass through
it any longer." But it was as obvious that the newcomers
came to stay as it was that the outgoing population went to return
no more. And, looking calmly at the conditions which had come
to be, it is not likely that any wise patriot in Jerusalem would
have checked the one movement or the other, if he could have
done so. These were only single incidents in the great plan of
Yahwe, who was chastising his people and yet preparing some
good thing for them in the end. Thus the Second Isaiah
(42:22 if.):40 "'But' (ye cry) 'it is a people robbed and plundered,
all of them trapped in holes and hidden away in dungeons ; they
have become a prey, with none to rescue; a spoil, with none to
say : Restore it ! ' O that some one of you would hear this ; would
hearken, and make it known for the future. Who cjave Jacob to
the spoiler, and Israel to those who plundered? Was it not
Yahwe. against whom they had sinned, in whose ways they would
not walk, and whose law they would not hear?" And again, in
48:9 ff. : "For my name's sake I will hold back mine anger; for
the sake of my praise I will spare thee, not cutting the^ off. Lo
I have purified thee for myself like silver, I have tried thee in the
furnace of affliction. For my sake, mine own sake, I will do it;
for how shall my name be profaned? and my glory I give to no
other." If this was the prevailing spirit among the religious
leaders in Jerusalem — and it assuredly was, as we know from the
Old Testament and especially from the Psalms — then it must, a
fortiori, have held sway everywhere in the Diaspora. No Jew in

39 Aside from this more gradual immigration, there seems also to have been a sudden
pouring in of Edomites just after Nebuchadrezzar's campaign.

*°As will appear, I have made one or two slight and obvious emendations in the text of
the passages quoted.

310 EZRA STUDIES

Babylonia, for instance, could ever have thought of advising the
colonists there to return; nor would any member of the presum
ably still larger gola in Egypt have counseled his countrymen to
make their way back to Palestine, though they might perhaps
have found it possible to do so. All the faithful, of whatever
land, dreamed of a great home-gathering, but not in this present
age; the day when the exiles were to return to Zion was the day
when all evils, for man or beast, should be forever done away
(Is. 11:1-16, 60:16-22, 65:25, 66:19f.). But obviously no one
could hasten the glorious time by bringing the lion straw to eat,
or by forcing the leopard and the lamb to lie down together.

The Jews have always been a people of strong faith, but they
had before them at this time such a problem in theodicy as no
other people has ever faced. It was quite impossible that they—
the best part of them — should doubt that they had really been
called and led by Yahwe, and that he was able to carry out his
purpose for them. The question was simply, ivhat his plan was,
and hoiv he intended to work it out. The new and very disheart
ening conditions made necessary a new development of Jewish
theology. How well fitted were they for such a task?

If the modern view of the external history of the Jewish res
toration is thoroughly mistaken, that of the religious tone and
temper of the people of the second temple is even more so. Had
the men of Jerusalem in the Persian period really been such as
our text-books represent them, — dispirited particularists ; un
friendly to everything lying outside the pale of Jewish orthodoxy,
and with ceremonial piety as their ideal of personal righteousness;
with their faces toward the past rather than the future, and unable
to take a broad view of their situation, — then they would, indeed,
have been incapable of any adequate solution of their great prob
lem. But they were by no means such men as this ; the current
characterization of them is a false one. Here, also, the source of
the error lies in a wrong estimate of the writings of the Chronicler ;
the mistake of supposing him to be a trustworthy historian, instead
of an apologist setting forth a one-sided theory. At the time when
the great battle of modern Biblical scholarship was fought and
won, establishing the fact that the "priestly" strata of the early
Hebrew narratives, and of the legislation of the Pentateuch, were
of relatively late date, pretty nearly the whole body of what was
recognized as "post-exilic" literature (aside from the poetical

THE EXILE AND THE KESTOKATION 311

books) consisted of writings which either were written or redacted
by professional priests, or else came from the Chronicler's
hand (viz. Chronicles, Ezra, and all the narrow- Judaistic part of
Nehemiah). Hence these were of necessity regarded as the char
acteristic products of the period, and upon them was built, forth
with, a theory of the "post-exilic religion" of Israel. At the
present day, we know that the most of the prophetical literature
contained in our Old Testament, including the deepest and most
wide-hearted expressions of the Hebrew faith which exist, dates
from the Persian period. This was the golden age of Hebrew
prophecy, as it was also that of Hebrew poetry. Nevertheless the
outgrown and unjust theory persists, and the dogma of "the peo
ple given over to formalism" is one which no one questions. The
faithful community in Jerusalem and Judea is pictured as a
"church" of a narrow and ever narrowing type, busied with small
and uninspiring matters. Even the noblest utterances of psalm
ist and "post-exilic" prophet are given a petty interpretation; so
that instead of reaching the utmost horizon, as by their own word
ing they seem to do, they are made to cover only the smallest and
unworthiest patch of human life and interest.41

If there were any facts tending to show that the Jews of Per
sian Palestine were really such a caricature of religious humanity
as the "post-exilic" theory depicts them, then the honest investi
gator would of necessity drop all considerations of probability and
lay hold of these facts, endeavoring to interpret them fairly. But
there is, on the contrary, nothing tending to show that Israelite
theology in the Persian period (speaking of the people in gen
eral) was more legalistic than it had been in the latter days of the
kingdom; while there is very much to show that the general
tendency had been, and was, toward liberality. This was, in a
certain sense, a "legal" period. The ritual law had been steadily
growing until it had reached an unwieldy size, and this was the
time for its codification and revision, especially now that rival
sanctuaries, with rival rituals, were becoming dangerous. The
priests were more thoroughly organized than they had been before,
and were developing a considerable literary activity, as we have

*i For full illustration of this statement I would refer to any recent commentary on the
Psalms, especially that of Duhm ; or to the modern interpretation of any " post-exilic "
prophet, especially the Second Isaiah. Professor Cheyne's little volume, ''''Jewish Religious
Life after the Exile," sets forth quite fully, and with great learning and skill, the modern
view; but such a religious society as he depicts could probably never have existed any
where, and certainly never did exist in Palestine.

312 EZRA STUDIES

abundant evidence. But these few priests were not the whole
people, and the fact that they had written or edited a considerable
number of the documents which (thanks to their care) have sur
vived to the present day can give us no clue whatever as to the
religious tendencies of the laity. It was, in fact, a time of many
widely differing tendencies. The new and strange conditions, at
home and abroad, the rapid influx of foreign ideas, and the break
ing up of the nation, all brought forth extreme types of religion,
conservative on the one hand and radical on the other. There
were scribes who were absorbed, as never before, in legal minu
tiae; there were narrow-hearted nationalists; and there were
apologists who, like the Chronicler, were compelled by their own
argument to present a distorted view, whether they would have
preferred it or not. On the other hand, there was a strong
tendency toward ultra-liberalism, going to the extent of giving up
all that was characteristic of the Jewish faith. There were even
many, from the better part of the people, who adopted outright
the crude and often very revolting forms of the pagan worship
which they saw in the land; as is made evident by the tremen
dous invectives in Is. 57 and 65 f., as well as by th^milder yet
severely ironical polemic against idolatry M~eWp£? 40 f . , 44, etc.
But the great majority of the people stood at nej^frfl^the one nor
the other extreme. So far as "the law" was corufflfned, the hints
given us by the Chronicler indicate that the rank and file of the
people paid not over much attention to it. Judging from the
prophecy of Malachi — who was himself one of the most liberal-
minded of men — even the priests were prone to neglect it. From
passage after passage in the prophets and the Psalter we can see
that the true sentiment of the people was against ritualism ; that
their religious life was based on the spirit rather than the letter,
and could combine the new with the old. There were multitudes
(judging from the literature which we have) whose view
was broad and sane, and who were in all respects worthy heirs of
the teaching of their leaders and representatives, the prophets.
Israel's inheritance from the past was a great one, not a small one,
and it was a possession of which they could and did make use. It
has been customary to think of the prophets of the Old Testament
as isolated phenomena ; men speaking words put into their mouth
by the Holy Spirit, but heeded by none of those who heard
(Matt. 13:14f.). On the contrary, these great teachers were all

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 313

men of the people. By seeing what they were, we can see what
the people were. Every prophet of Israel was the true product,
and the best product, of his own day, the leader into a better time
which his voice and his example helped to bring near, but which
could not come without the added help of the many. When Amos,
Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all their fellows, had passed away,
their work was not merely stored up in written books and laid
away at one side, as it were; it was living in the hearts of the
people. As I have already said, above, the religious life of
Jerusalem and Judea went on from the period of the monarchy
over into that of the foreign dominion in one continuous line of
development.

The Jews of the Persian and 'Greek periods did work out a
solution worthy of their past and adequate to the demand of the
time. It is impossible to go into details here, only the bare facts
can be stated. They accepted the distress and the humiliation as
deserved punishment. No people possessed of a genuine religious
spirit, and accustomed to the idea of a special divine guidance,
could fail to look for a benevolent purpose in all this discipline ;
and the Jews made their way, by degrees, into a new and wider
view of their life as the chosen few, all the way from Abraham on
to the coming age. They saw, and welcomed, what was good in
the religious beliefs of the Gentiles. The sacrifices and rites
which had been ordained for the Hebrews were the best for them,
beyond question, but were not necessary for other peoples. Even
for the Israelites themselves, the ceremonial law was not the
essential thing; psalmist after psalmist and prophet after prophet
express clearly their conviction — which was certainly the convic
tion of the people as a whole — that what Yah we wishes of his
children is not burnt offering and punctilious observance, but
clean hands and a pure heart, loyal affection to the God who had
chosen them, and good will toward all their brethren.42

As for the Gentiles, the prophet Malachi says in the most

+2 We find in tho Psalter, as nowhere else, the true religion of the Jews of the second
temple. However strongly subjective many of these poems are, they certainly speak, in the
main, for tho multitude, the common people who made up the great majority of Israel.
Hence the deepest significance of the fact that we find, all through the collection, a faith
which is warm-hearted and catholic, and founded on practical common sense. It is true
that one and another of these poets speak despairingly of "the righteous few," but such
phrases are only the expressions of a mood. In the great majority of the poems the con
sciousness of the multitude, not indeed righteous, but at least hungering for righteous
ness, is evident enough. But so long as the Psalms are understood as the utterances of
men akin in spirit to the leaders of thocougregation pictured by the Chronicler, just so long
will they continue to be cruelly misinterpreted.

314 EZEA STUDIES

unequivocal terms (1:11), that all the worship which they offer
sincerely is accepted by Yahwe as offered to him. In the afflic
tion of the Dispersion, these teachers of the restored community
were quick to see a new opportunity. Israel was destined to
bring the nations to Yahwe. Even in its suffering, to the point
of death, it was fulfilling the divine mission, hastening to comple
tion its work as the faithful "Servant." Indeed, these very suf
ferings were by God's plan made to be an atonement for the sin
of the Gentiles. It is worthy of especial notice, as a striking
illustration of the range of this religious sympathy, as wide as the
human race, how the Second Isaiah, in picturing the return of the
"exiles" from all parts of the earth, represents the Gentiles
as coming home with them. See Is. 49: 8 ff., where the com
parison of the parallel passage, 42:6f., shows conclusively that
those who are "bound" and "in darkness" are not only Jews but
also Gentiles, to whom Israel has been appointed to give light
(D"^3 *fitfb). Yahwe leads these foreign flocks also as their own
"good shepherd," the phrases used here being just like those em
ployed in 40:11, 41:18, 43:19-21, etc. It is not to be doubted
that also in such passages as 61: Iff., where the "Servant" is
appointed to open the blind eyes and heal the broken hearts, the
writer's thought included the whole world, though with primary
reference (of course) to Israel. Yahwe's "day of punishment"
(Dpj DV, vs. 2) is for all the guilty, Jews and Gentiles alike; and
his comfort, in like manner, is for all.43 Compare with this Is.
25:8, where the God of Israel wipes away the tears "from all
faces." See also such passages as 2:2-4, 19:24 f., 66:18, 21;
Ps. 65:3, 145:14-18, 146:7 f. These are only a few passages,
among those which could be named, but they are a splendid array !

*3 In the dlwan, or collected poems, of the Second Isaiah, two great themes are
especially prominent. The one is the mean ing of Israel's history, and the other
is the return home in the Messianic time. In working out his philosophy of
the nation's history, the great poet appeals constantly to the call of Abraham (41 : 2, etc. In
46:11, instead of ^y we must read "H^S? "my servant," parallel to ip^y TITX "the
man of my counsel") and to the return from Egypt (43: 16 f., 48:21, etc.) but rests his whole
scheme on the very broadest and truest conceptions of human life and the divine dealing.
In picturing the home-gathering, his world-wide sympathy is all the time making itself
apparent. He gives Israel the foremost place in the blessed age to come (how could h ' do
otherwise?), but never forgets the blessings destined for the heathen, including many even
from those nations which have been Zion's worst enemies. In every people there am chil
dren of Yahwe; he must visit a terrible punishment upou the guilty (and the guilty of Israel
are included), but the righteous, of whatever race, will be saved. The world's literature
contains nothing which can surpass the poems of this great soul — the prophet of the Dis
persion, as he might be styled — who first recognized fully the meaning of "the chosen
people " and gave it an expression which will stand as true for all time, and who first
sketched clearly and firmly the figure of a personal Messiah.

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 315

VIII. JEWISH TEMPLES OF THE DISPERSION

Thus far, we have considered the manner of the restoration,
and the material and religious condition of the revived com
munity. We have also seen that the attitude of the Jews of
Judea toward those of the Dispersion was one of cordial good
will and affection, like that of the mother who sees her son go
away from home to enter upon his career. It remains to ask,
however, how jealous the Palestinian Jews were of their own
temple, in opposition to Jewish temples built for the worship of
Yahwe in foreign lands. Until very recently, this question would
hardly have received serious consideration. Now, however, the
papyri from Elephantine have opened our eyes. There, in the
heart of Upper Egypt, in the sixth and fifth centuries B. c., stood
a notable sanctuary, to the history of which I have already alluded.
The members of the Jewish colony at Yeb were not only worship
ing the God of their fathers there, down to the year 411, with all
due ceremony and in perfect sincerity; but when the temple was
destroyed by their enemies, they sent a petition for help to
their brethren in Judea. Those scholars who have discussed
the questions raised by these papyri have all, with one voice,
pronounced the Jews of this Upper Egyptian colony schismatic,
and their temple an eyesore to the Jews of Jerusalem. We know,
from the papyrus letter, that the petitioners did not receive
any help from their Judean fellow-countrymen, in
answer to their request. All commentators explain this
fact as due to the hostility which the adherents of the temple in
Jerusalem must have felt toward the schismatic church in Egypt
(an unjustified explanation, as will presently appear). "How
could the orthodox in Judea," it is said, "give aid to a temple on
foreign soil, when it is declared with the greatest emphasis in
Deuteronomy that Jerusalem is the only legitimate place for the
worship of Yahwe?" Such a sanctuary, according to the accepted
view, must have been looked upon as an evil thing, by all the
faithful and zealous who knew the law. One eminent scholar,
speaking of the temple at Elephantine soon after the fact of its
existence was discovered, said: "This was enough to make, per
haps actually did make, Jeremiah howl." But were the people
of Judea in the time of the second temple really so very narrow,
and so very unreasonable, as this? Was Jeremiah so small-

316 EZRA STUDIES

souled a man as this estimate would make him ? On the contrary,
we have no good ground for supposing that the laws in question
had any reference to sanctuaries outside of the holy land.
More than one Old Testament scholar, writing before the dis
covery of the letters from the colony at Yeb, had expressed the
opinion that the ordinances in Deut. 12, forbidding worship at
sanctuaries other than the one in Jerusalem, were intended to
refer only to Palestine. This is certainly the correct view.
The laws in question were framed for the purpose of maintaining
the primacy of the temple at Jerusalem in the face of the
growing importance of Hebrew sanctuaries elsewhere in the land.
So long as the shrine on Mount Moriah continued to stand,
there could never be the least question as to its superior sanctity
in comparison with all shrines on foreign soil. So long as Jews
remained Jews, and "called themselves by the name" of Abraham
and Jacob, their loyalty must attach itself to Palestine. But
Abraham and Jacob had other famous shrines in the home-land,
some of which might easily dispute the first place with Jerusalem.
We may be sure that from the time when these "Deuteronomic"
commands came into circulation, their purpose was well under
stood in the Dispersion, and also, that they were generally
approved. Jerusalem was, in fact, accepted as the one primary
seat of worship by all the Jews in the home-land, excepting those
who attached themselves to Shechem and Mount Gerizim, of
whom more will be said presently. Those who went abroad into
the foreign lands, therefore, must have continued to give due
glory to the mother sanctuary and uphold its prestige, while (of
course) maintaining the right to build their own local houses of
sacrifice and worship. There were large Jewish colonies in the great
Gentile cities; it would be preposterous to expect them to give
up their worship, or to limit it to pilgrimages (!) to the mother-
country. Within the small territory of Palestine, the journey to
the central shrine might be made a requirement, but not so in
Babylonia, Egypt, and the isles of the sea. We see plainly from
the papyri of Yeb that the members of the Jewish church there
had no idea that they were doing anything irregular, or that could
be displeasing to their brethren in Judea. Inasmuch as their
sanctuary had been standing for more than a hundred years, at
the time when their letter was written, it can be put down as
certain that, if they had been deemed schismatic by the home

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 317

church, they would have known it long ago. There were similar
religious conditions in other similar colonies, and it may well be
that we shall discover, some day, that in Babylonia and else
where there were flourishing Jewish temples, in which sacrifice
to Yah we was offered in the time-honored way. And of this we
may be certain, that the best representatives of Palestinian Judaism
would all, to a man, have hailed with genuine enthusiasm the
building of all such houses of worship for their "exiled" brethren.
We have in addition to the Elephantine documents two or
three other bits of information as to the loyalty to the temple at
Jerusalem shown in the Dispersion, and as to the friendliness of
the Jews of Judea toward the members of a colonial church. The
first of these is the account given by Josephus (Antt. xiii, 3, 4)
of a public contest between the Jews and the Samaritans in Egypt
in the time of Ptolemy Philometor, the question at issue being
this, whether in the law of Moses the preferred sanctuary is at
Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim. According to the narrative, the
Jews on this occasion showed great zeal for the honor of the
temple at Jerusalem. Whatever degree of credence we give to
the account, it is at least obvious that the one who first composed
it believed that the Egyptian Jews would all have shown such
zeal as this. Much more important is the testimony given by the
two letters prefixed to the book of II Maccabees." The
first of these, 1:1-9 (not vss. 1-10«, as Swete's edition and all
the recent textbooks and translations have it!) is sent by the
Jews of Judea to their fellows in Egypt to urge them to observe
the feast of the re-dedication of the temple, and is dated in the
year 169 (143 B.C.) I do not see how its genuineness can be
doubted. It attests both the fraternal co-operation existing at
that time between the two religious communities, and also the
fact that the superiority of the sanctuary in Jerusalem was taken
as a matter of course on both sides. In view of the paucity of
material of this sort, it is an extremely valuable document. The
second of the two letters, which I also believe to be genuine, is
dated in the year 188 (124 B.C.). It bears the same witness as
the other, while the manner in which it goes into detail, in giving
the ground for their mutual rejoicing, makes the fact of long
continued and traditional good feeling all the more certain. It

**I have discussed these letters at length in the Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft, XX (1900), pp. 225-42, aud refer, for details, to that place.

318 EZRA STUDIES

is quite generally taken for granted that the adherents of the
temple at Leontopolis were always looked upon as rivals and oppo
nents of the Palestinian Jews, but this is surely an error. Rivalry
or enmity on occasional grounds is of course always and every
where possible; the circumstances of the founding of a new
sanctuary, for instance, might be the cause of bad feeling, even
long continued. Such rivalry and hostility have not infrequently
attended the founding of new Christian churches, it must be
admitted. But that the Jews of Judea ever opposed the temple
at Leontopolis, or similar Jewish temples in any other part of the
Gentile world, on the ground of infringement of the Deu-
teronomic law, I do not believe for a moment.

As for the failure of the church in Judea to give the much-
needed aid to the daughter-church in Upper Egypt, in the year
411: we are now able to connect this fact with a very important
and interesting historical event, which has only recently been
illuminated for us by these very same papyrus records. Josephus,
Antt. xi, 7, tells the following story. When the high priest
Eliashib died, his son Judah succeeded him; then, when the
latter died, he in turn was succeeded by his son Johanan ('I&dv-
vrjs). It was because of a deed of this Johanan that the Persian
Bagoses (Bo^cocr?;?), who was the officer (crrparrjyo^) of Artaxerxes
Mnemon, defiled the temple and imposed a tax on the Jews. It
happened in this wise. The high priest Johanan had a brother
named Jeshua ('I^croO?). Bagoses, who was a friend of the latter,
promised to bring it about that he, instead of his brother, should
be high priest. Johanan quarreled with his brother in the
temple, and the quarrel ended in the death of Jeshua. Bagoses,
vowing vengeance, not only defiled the temple by entering the
most holy place, but also fined the Jews thenceforward for seven
years, taxing them before the daily sacrifice fifty drachmas for
each lamb. Thus far Josephus. It has been customary to iden
tify this Persian officer with the Bagoas who held such an
important place at the court under Artaxerxes III Ochus; and
our historians have accordingly supposed a punitive expedition of
a Persian army to Jerusalem. Possibly Josephus himself made
this identification, though his use of the term ar pantos is not
sufficient evidence of the fact. But now, at last, we know that
the Bagoas (Bagoses) of Josephus' story was a very different
person from the grand-vizier who made and unmade kings. When

THE EXILE AND THE KESTORATION 319

the letter from the Jews at Yeb was written in the year 411,
Johanan was the high priest in Jerusalem; and the Persian
governor of Judea, presumably resident in Jerusalem, was
named VHjQ , i.e., Bagoas or Bagoses. This is the man, beyond
all question, who is intended in the narrative preserved by
Josephus; and we are now for the first time in a position to
understand the account, and also, to see why the request of
the petitioners at Elephantine was not granted. These
Jews in Upper Egypt can hardly have had any knowledge of the
relation existing between the clergy of Jerusalem and their
Persian governor, and they asked, in good faith, that Johanan
make request of Bagoas for their benefit. But we can see that
such a request would probably have been impossible at any time
after Johanan had assumed the office of high priest. Doubtless
the Jews of Palestine would very gladly have assisted their breth
ren of Upper Egypt if they had been able to do so.

IX. THE HIGH PRIESTS OF THE SECOND TEMPLE

We have already seen (p. 156, top) that the community in
Jerusalem possessed no historical tradition or information relating
to the first century of the Persian period, excepting the prophe
cies of Haggai and Zechariah. The Chronicler's list of the high
priests furnishes an illustration of this statement. He gives us,
for the whole period of two hundred years from the advent of
Cyrus down to Alexander 'the Great, a succession of only six
names: Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, Jaddua; see
Neh. 12: 10 f., 22. What is more, the succession is given as
invariably from father to son: "Jeshua begat Joiakim, Joia
kim begat Eliashib," and so on to the end. The list is evidently
artificial, and modern scholars have been disposed to attach little
value to it as a whole. The name of Jeshua's father, Jehozadak,
was already given in Hag. 1:1 etc., Zech. 6:11. The Chronicler
accordingly provides the still earlier genealogy, and notes in
I Chron. 5:41 (6:15): "Jehozadak went into captivity when
Yahwe carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebu
chadnezzar;" thus establishing the connection which was essential
to his theory.

The period in which the high priest Jaddua lived has generally
been treated as a known starting-point, and with good reason.
He is the last high priest mentioned in "canonical" scripture.

320 EZRA STUDIES

The Chronicler, who names him, names in the same connection
Darius III Codomannus (Neh. 12:22), thus showing that he
means to bring the high-priestly genealogy down to the begin
ning of the Greek period. And it must be borne in mind that
the generation which saw the conquests of Alexander reached
nearly or quite to the Chronicler's own day. Moreover, the
source used by Josephus in his Antt. xi, 8, where he tells the
long and circumstantial story of Sanaballat, Manasseh, and the
Samaritan secession, represented Jaddua and Alexander the Great
as contemporaries.45 The trustworthiness of the Jewish tradition
as to the date of the high priest Jaddua ought therefore to be
beyond question, especially when we remember the Chronicler's
supreme interest in priests and priestly genealogies, and how
easy it must have been for him to learn who was the high priest
in office at the end of the reign of Darius Codomannus, probably
less than one hundred years before the time when he wrote.

One. other name in the list is also assured, and the date certain.
From the papyrus letter found at Elephantine we know that the
high priest at Jerusalem in the year 411 was Johanan. As has
just been shown, Josephus has preserved a story regarding him
which deserves credence. From it we learn that he had a brother
named Jeshua ; that the Persian governor of the province was a
friend of the latter, but an enemy of the high priest; and that
Joshua was slain by Johanan in the heat of a quarrel.46 It was
doubtless because of the unparalled horror of this tragedy — the
murder, by the high priest, of his own brother, in the temple! —
that the memory of it remained fresh, while every recollection of
Johanan's predecessors was lost, The indignity of the special
fine, which continued for seven years to be imposed by the gover
nor, would also help to keep the name of this high priest before
the people. We can by no means be certain that his term of
office immediately preceded that of Jaddua. One or more other
incumbents may have intervened between the two.

In Neh. 12:11 our texts all read "Jonathan" ("rCV) instead

45 According to Antt. xi, 8, 7, the death of Jaddua occured after that of Alexander.

« From the fact that Josephus. in telling this story, calls Bagohi the "officer of Arta-
xerxes II" (see above), it seems likely that he or his source supposed this event to have
taken place in his reign, rather than in that of Darius II. But it may mean only, that
Bagohi (and Johanan as well) were ordinarily associated with Artaxerxes II in the popular
tradition. The whole occurence is more easily imagined as taking place near the begin
ning of Johanan's term of office, and while he and his brother were still comparatively
young, than at any later time.

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 321

of "Johanan" ("jj/lV), and this fact has led some to conjecture
that the Chronicler's list orginally contained seven names instead
of six. But the conjecture has very little probability, for the
following reasons. (1) The number of the names in vss. 10 f.,
from Eliashib to Jaddua, agrees with the number in vs. 22.
(2) The transcriber's error, "POT for "jjHV, is an extremely easy
one. (3) Josephus makes no mention of a "Jonathan." It is
evident from this that his text of Nehemiah had the reading
"Johanan" in 12:11; if the Chronicler's genealogical table in
the form which he had before him had contained both names,
he certainly would have included both in his history, since the
Chronicler is his only source of information as to the predecessors
of Jaddua and Johanan.

Of the preceding names in the list, between Johanan and
Jeshua, we are at present unable to make any use, since we have
no means of knowing whether the Chronicler invented them or not.47

X. THE RIVALRY WITH THE SAMARITANS

One very important phase of the struggle for the religious
restoration of Jerusalem is still to be considered, namely, the con
test for the recognition of Zerubbabel's temple as the one true
Palestinian home of the worship of Yah we. It was not simply
a question of the persistence of other Hebrew sanctuaries. More
than one sacred place continued to be greatly revered, without
ever becoming dangerous as a rival, so far as we know. For
example, on at least two occasions when Jerusalem was stricken, the
ancient shrine of Mizpah was the rallying place of tlie people.
It was here that Gedaliah made his headquarters after the burn
ing of the temple (II Kings 25:23), and thither also the Jews
under Judas Maccabaeus turned in the time of their greatest dis
tress (I Mace. 3:46—51). But we have no reason to 'suppose
that at any time after the building of Solomon's temple Mizpah

^ It is clear, at any rate, that he was mistaken as to the time at which Johanan became
high priest. What he knew with certainty was, that Jaddua was high priest at the time
when Alexander the Great appeared; and he believed that Johan'an was the next
before Jaddua. In Ezra 10:6 (cf. Neh. 12:23) Johanan is evidently thought of as a
youth in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Mnemon ; and in Neh. 13:28, dated in the thirty-
sricond year of the same king, the grandfather, Eliashib (or is it the father, Joiada?) is
still holding the office of higli priest. But we know from the Elephantine papyrus that
Johanan was holding t*-o office in the latter part of the reign of Darius II, at least eight
years before the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes II. Considering the fact that
nearly seventy years intervened between the accession of Artaxerxes Mnemon and
that of Darius Codomannus, it is easy to see how the Chronicler was thus misled.

322 EZRA STUDIES

really threatened to become the principal Israelite seat of worship.
There was only one city in all the land which could and did dis
pute Jerusalem's claim to the religious primacy, and that city was
Shechem. As one of the most sacred localities in the territory of
Israel, Shechem had been important from the beginning, and its
importance had grown. After the fall of the Southern Kingdom,
its prestige was much increased. By degrees, the rivalry of the
shrine on Mount Gerizim became really serious, and many
passages in the Old Testament show that the Jews were becoming
concerned to maintain the supremacy of their own temple, and to
combat the pretensions of their dangerous competitors. At last,
the rivalry broke out into open conflict, ending in a struggle for
life or death which exercised a profound influence on the Judean
community, especially in and after the Greek period. If the
chief of those forces which principally shaped the Jewish theology
of the Restoration was the Dispersion, that one which contributed
most to the development of the tendencies which produced the
narrower and more exclusive type of "Judaism" —a type which
plays only a very small part in the Old Testament, be it noted —
was the long contest with the Samaritans.

Shechem had been the chief center of the patriarchal history.
In the very beginning, a sacred tree had stood there, with an altar
and a masseba. Abraham himself founded the sanctuary, on the
day when he first received the promise of the land for his children
(Gen. 12:6 f.). There Jacob had worshiped, and the well which
he had dug was near by. Joshua, after finishing his work, made
his solemn covenant with the people at this shrine (Josh. 24:1,
25 f.), and it was in this vicinity that the bones of Joseph were
buried (Josh. 24:32). In the book of Deuteronomy, in more than
one place, Mount Gerizim is given especial honor in connection with
the proclaiming of the law. The "blessing" is put on Mount
Gerizim, and the "curse" on Mount Ebal (Deut. 11:29).48

48 This fact is immediately obscured by vs. 30, which contains a later addition by means
of which the two mountains are transferred to the Jordan valley. The verse reads at present :
"Are they not on the other side of the Jordan, beyond the western road, in the land of the
Canaanite who dwells in the Arabah, opposite Gil gal, beside the terebinths of
MorehT' What Ebal and Gerizim have to do with "the Arabah," and how they could be
described as "opposite Gilgal" (some twenty-eight miles SSW. of Shechem!), are questions
which have puzzled the commentators; Driver, Comm., pp. 133 f., for instance, confesses his
inability to answer them. But the fact is, these added phrases were intended to discomfit
the Samaritans by showing that another pair of mountains, bearing the same names but
lying much nearer to the old crossing of the Jordan, were originally intended. This altera
tion, made before the time of the schism, was the forerunner of the later deliberate change
of "Gerizim" to "Ebal," in the Jewish text of Deut. 27:4 and Josh. 8:30 (see below). So

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 323

By the command of Yahwe through Moses, the people build an
altar on the sacred mountain, Gerizim, as soon as they have
crossed the Jordan into the promised land (Deut. 27:1-8; Josh.
8:30 ff.).4fl No wonder that the Samaritans kept reiterating: Our
fathers, the patriarchs, worshiped in this mountain!

All through the time of the Hebrew kingdoms, this ancient
sanctuary was especially revered. It is probably an exaggeration,
however, when in Luther-Meyer (Israeli-ten und Nachbarstdmme,
p. 559) it is spoken of as the main religious rallying-point for all
northern Israel. Shechem did not have any great central im
portance, as a seat of worship, in the days of the monarchy. If
this had indeed been the fact, some definite indication of it would
pretty certainly have been preserved. The Northern Kingdom had
other religious centers which came into political prominence, and
Shechem was temporarily eclipsed — for reasons which we do not
happen to know. It is not likely that the existing conditions
were altered in any important respect by the deportation of some
of the people of the district of Samaria, and the corresponding
importation of foreigners, under the Assyrian rule. The members
of this religious community were, and continued to be, mainly
Hebrews (on this subject see further below). The significant
change began when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, and
the kingdom of the house of David was brought to an end. Then,
as was natural, the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim gained greatly in
importance; all the more so when Samaria became the first main
seat of government in Palestine under the Persian rule. Doubt
less not a few of the fugitives from Jerusalem, including some of
the clergy, betook themselves at once to Shechem after the great
calamity of the year 586 ; see the remarks already made, pp.
209, 212, 235 f. We are not to suppose that even now, after the
rapid rise in the influence of the northern shrine, the worship
there was performed on any such scale, or with any such central
significance, as that in Jerusalem had been and soon came to be
again. The prescriptions of the book of Deuteronomy were

Eduard Meyer, Die Israel/ten und ihre Nachbarstdmme, pp. 543 ff. I am glad to be able now
to refer to those illuminating investigations of Luther-Meyer, instead of needing to elaborate
my own arguments and conclusions on these points.

*9 The Samaritan Pentateuch has the original readingin Deut. ; "Gerizim," not "Ebal."
In the Jewish text, t li t iame "Ebal "was substituted in both Deut. 27:4 and Josh.
8:30, after the secession of the Samaritans. See Meyer, op. cit., pp. 545 f. This is a conclusion
of whose correctness I have long been assured. It has been generally customary to accuse
the Samaritans, rather than the Jews, of having made the alteration. See further below.

324 EZEA STUDIES

known and respected (as the event proved) throughout the length
and breadth of Palestine, wherever any close attention was paid
to the Mosaic ritual. The sanctuary at Shechem had its own
priesthood, of course, but not a high priest and the machinery
of a great central shrine. These, as the narratives show, came
later, in consequence of the break with Jerusalem. After the
Judeans had rebuilt their temple, the Samaritan church continued
to nourish, and still as an institution of secondary rank, not claim
ing to be the chief religious rallying-point of Israel. In all
probability there was no sharp rivalry, such as to produce bad
feeling between the two communities in general, until shortly be
fore the hijra of Manasseh and his adherents. Even in the year
408 B. c., the time of the petition from Elephantine, the churches
of Jerusalem and Shechem seem to have been still "on speaking
terms." The Jews of Egypt plainly knew of no open hostility
existing between them. The Shechemites, on their part, had no
reason to be hostile. Beyond any doubt, they still acknowledged
the primacy of the temple on Mount Moriah, though giving the
regulations of Deuteronomy an interpretation conformed to their
own interests. Hence they accepted the Jerusalem redaction of
the Pentateuch. They wished, of course, to have their own sanc
tuary recognized and authorized, and so long as the Judean
temple had the upper hand, especially in the matter of the literary
tradition, the safest course was to hold to it. The Jews, on the
contrary, had nothing to gain, and much to lose, from any express
recognition of the shrine on Gerizim. The time came, moreover,
when they saw that the prestige of their own temple was really in
jeopardy; and from that time on they became, at least in secret,
more and more jealous of their northern brethren.

There was a definite time when the already strained relations
between the church in Jerusalem and that in Shechem suffered an
important change, covert opposition being replaced by open and
bitter hostility. Something happened which was at once so dis
agreeable and so decisive in its character that it led to an imme
diate declaration of independence on the part of the Samaritans.
Thenceforward they were done with all allegiance to the temple
in Judea, or even with recognition of it on equal terms. " Ye
say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship,"
but "our fathers worshiped in this mountain" (John
4:20). The Jews responded even more bitterly, and war to the

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 325

knife was declared. This was the real "Samaritan schism," and
it proved to be an important turning-point in the history of
Palestine. We know at least the nature of the event which caused
this sudden and violent outburst of feeling and the separation
which was incurable from the first. A young Jew of the family
of the high priest married the daughter of the governor of
Samaria, in spite of the opposition of his own family and of his
most zealous Jewish associates. In consequence, he was disowned
and driven from Jerusalem; while on the other hand his father-
in-law made him high priest of the Samaritan church, and built a
fine temple for the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim. Either the
young renegade had been especially popular in Jerusalem, or else
there was already considerable disaffection in the ranks of the
Jewish clergy ; at any rate, a goodly number of priests and Levites
deserted at once, following their leader to the northern sanctu
ary.50

By ill fortune, the sources of our knowledge of these events
are both meager and ambiguous. It is universally supposed that
our two chief sources contradict each other, but this I believe to
be a mistake. Our best modern scholars are in doubt as to the
name of the young fugitive and that of his father the high priest.
The one thing of which all are sure is the name of the Samaritan
governor, Sanaballat, in whose time the event occurred. But
even here there is a very disturbing element of uncertainty, inas
much as two dates, about one hundred years apart, seem to be
given for his time. The earlier date is the one now accepted by
the great majority of scholars; the other is the one which I
myself believe to be correct. I think it can be shown that, so far
as the Samaritan schism is concerned, the later date is the only
one which can seriously be taken into account.

Direct information from contemporary sources as to the
feeling in Jerusalem against these adversaries, in the early time,
is very scarce indeed. At the beginning of the Christian era, the
Jews had "no dealings with the Samaritans" (John. 4:9). It
was a somewhat unusual thing for a Jew passing through the
Samaritan country to exchange a word with one of its inhabitants,
even where it was merely a case of a man chatting with a woman.
Bar Sira, writing about 180 B.C., mentions the hated rivals with

50 Josophus, Antt. xi, 8, 6, calls Shechem a city "inhabited by apostates of the Jewish
nation." Probably its inhabitants had always been prevailingly Hebrew.

326 EZEA STUDIES

a contemptuous phrase (50:26): "that foolish people that dwells
in Shechem," and declares that they are "no nation" (vs. 25 ).51
Evidently in his day, also, the two Hebrew churches, worshipers
of Yahwe and custodians of the Mosaic law, were deadly enemies
and had been such for a long time past. The Chronicler,
writing some fifty years earlier than Bar Sira, made it his great
work to establish the sole legitimacy of the institutions of Jerusa
lem in opposition to the Samaritan claims. From the manner
in which he proceeds, and the scale on which his work is planned,
it is evident that the contest in his day was bitter, and, what is
more, that the Jews were in some real danger of being outstripped.
He attacks the Shechemites both openly, making them out to be
a heterogeneous mob of heathen (see for example pp. 169, 173,
182 f.), and also indirectly, through the medium of the Northern
Kingdom (pp. 235 if.), or the opponents of Nehemiah (p. 249),
or in still other ways. The Aramaic story which the Chronicler
incorporated in Ezra, chaps. 4-6, contained a slightly earlier
polemic of a similar character. The author of this popular
narrative probably lived and wrote not far from 250 B. c. The
malicious alteration of "Gerizim" to uEbal," in the Jerusalem
text of Deut. 27:4 and Josh. 8:30, has already been mentioned.
The date of this change can only be conjectured, but it was prob
ably very soon after the secession of the Samaritans.52 Earlier still
came the tendentious alteration of Deut. 11:30, already described.
One of the late narratives of II Kings is an interesting docu
ment of the rivalry between the two Hebrew communities, those
of Judea and Samaria, before the time of the schism. It is the
story of the origin of the Samaritan people, composed with
an animus which is constantly in evidence. We know from the
Assyrian records that in the year 722 Sargon deported 27,290 of
the people of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, filling their place
with colonists from his eastern domain. The number of those
deported is not unusually large, and was certainly only a small
fraction of the Hebrew population of the region. But the Jewish

51 It is plain that Bar Sira is here quoting Deut. 32: 21 : "I will move them to joalousy
with those who are no nation; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish people." The
fact may be without significance, but the possibility can hardly be denied that in the oii^inal
passage also (of course written prior to the hijra of Manasseh) the Samaritans were
intended.

52 The alteration may possibly have been made before the schism, in which case we
should have to suppose that the Samaritans knew the original reading and restored it.
There is little to choose between the two hypotheses.

THE EXILE AND THE KESTORATION 327

narrator makes characteristic use of the opportunity. According
to II Kings 17:6, 18, 23; 18:9-12, all the Israelites of the f\0
Northern Kingdom were carried away at this time to Assyria and
Media! "Yah we was very angry with Israel, and removed them
out of his sight; there was none left but the tribe of Judah only"
(17:18). And having thus removed the last remnant of the
chosen people from the region of Samaria, the narrator proceeds,
in 17:24-41, to describe the religious condition of the heathen
rabble with which the land had been filled by the Assyrian king.
They professed to worship Yahwe (the same contemptuous
taunt which is made in Ezr. 4:2), but came to this mind only
under compulsion (17:25 f.), and really continued to worship
their own idols, the gods of Cutha, Hamath, Babylon, and all the
other places from which they had come (cf. Ezr. 4:9 f., etc.).
"They made unto themselves of the loivest of them priests of the
high places, who sacrificed for them in the houses of the high
places" (17:32); compare the railing accusation made in II
Chron. 13:9 ff. (above, p. 235). And in summing up it is said,
in vs. 41: "So these nations 'feared Yahwe,' but served their
own graven images, they and their children and their children's
children; as did their fathers, so do they unto this day." To
regard all this as a true record of events is not possible for any
one who knows both the history of the past and the way in which
the historical books of the Old Testament were written. As a
matter of fact, it is not all accepted as trustworthy by modern
scholars. Cowley, Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Samaritans,"
p. 670, says: "It is not to be supposed, however, that the country
was in any sense depopulated by these means," that is, by
Sargon's deportation of Israelites. H. P. Smith, Old Testament
History, p. 230, also denies that the story of the deportation and
subsequent importation, as given in II Kings, is historically true;
and says in regard to the description of the religion of the
Samaritans (p. 231, note 2) : "The account in II Kings 17:24-34

seems to be composite A later hand emphasizes the syn-

cretistic character of the new religion, doubtless with a strong
prejudice against the Samaritans." Several scholars have, indeed,
pronounced the passage composite, but this is a mistake caused
by misapprehension of its character. Both 17:1-23 and 18:9-12
are inseparable from 17:24-41, and if there is evidence of the
work of more than one hand here, I, at least, am unable to find it.

328 EZRA STUDIES

It is obviously the whole account, and not merely a fragment
of it, that is written with the "strong prejudice against the
Samaritans." The story of the deportation of all the Israelites
is told for the sake of populating the land completely with
heathen, and this for the express purpose of showing the origin
of the cult on Mount Gerizim. The passage 17:24-41 has not
the least historical value.53 But the testimony of the account as
an anti-Samaritan polemic is significant and valuable. The date
of it is unfortunately only a matter of conjecture; I have no
doubt, however, that it was prior to the secession, most likely in
the fifth century B.C. It is obviously of one piece with the
polemic of the Chronicler and his Aramaic-writing colleague, and
provided the former, at least, with an important part of his
material. It may be added, finally, that there is no evidence of
hostility to this Shechemite shrine as far back as the time of the
composition of Deuteronomy. In that book, the sanctuary on
Mount Gerizim is mentioned with great respect ; there is nothing
to show that it was obnoxious to the people of Jerusalem.04

Returning to the question of the date of the Samaritan
secession: there are four documents which need especially to be
taken into account, in determining when the decisive event took
place. These are: (1) the full and circumstantial account given
by Josephus, Antt. xi, 7, 2; 8, 2-7; (2) the two verses, Neh.
13:28 f. ; (3) the letter from Elephantine, published by Sachau;
(4) the Samaritan Pentateuch. Let us begin with the last-named
of these documents. When the Samaritans declared war on the
Jews, and set up their own temple in open rivalry to the one in

5 ! It is plain that this is exactly the sort of story which the Samaritans on their
part could, and undoub;e lly did, make up in regard to the Jews. They would have
been a p30ple thick-witted above all others if they had failed to seize the obvious oppor
tunity. They could claim (and the Jews' own scriptures would support the claim!) that
Jerusalem and Judea were entirely depopulated by the armies of Nebuchadrezzar; that
Elomites, Ammonites, Philistines, Nnbateans, and many others, had poured in (the Jews
admitted this) ; that there was very little genuine Hebrew blood in Judea at the end of the
Persian period; and that the cult of the temple at Jerusalem during much of the time of
the Restoration was really a syncretism of varioas South Palestinian and North Arabian
forms of idolatry. Sac'i a representation would have had in it just about as much truth as
the malicious account in II Kings 17. TheJewscouldmakenosatisfactory reply
to it, however; and it was for this very reason that the Chronicler composed his
"history." After he had finished his work, the renown of Jerusalem and the disgrace of
Shechem wjre b3th assured. It is a pity that W3 hive only the Jewish stories of the
Samaritans, and not also the Samaritan stories of the Jews.

»*Some recent commentators on the book of Isaiah have found in chaps. 65 and 66, as
well as elsewhere in the latter part of the book, a polemic against the Samaritans. The
lofty utterance in 66:1, for instance, is said to be an allusion to the temple on Mount
Gerizim !

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 329

Jerusalem, they organized their expanded cultus on the basis of
the Pentateuch. This revered book, which contained the story
of the Hebrew origins, their laws, mostly ancient, and the
elaborate prescriptions regarding the cultus, largely more recent,
was the property of the whole Hebrew people. The entire com
pilation, from Genesis to Deuteronomy, would of necessity be the
text-book of any Hebrew sanctuary. The Shechemites of course
regarded (and had long regarded) their own right to the Penta
teuch as entirely equal to that of the Judean community ; though
they had admitted, as we have seen, that to the temple in
Jerusalem belonged the special prerogatives and the unique ritual
of the center of worship. When, therefore, we see that the
Pentateuch of the Samaritans is identical with that of
the Jews, we know with certainty that the history of the growth
of these five books of Moses teas closed before the time of the
schism. No alteration or addition made by the Jews in Jerusalem
after the separation would ever have been accepted by the
priests at Shechem. They would, on the contrary, at once have
raised the cry that their rivals were falsifying t^ie records; and
with the documents in their hands they could have proved their
point. The Jews were estopped from any further redaction of
the book, because their opponents also had it. Nevertheless, they
did make the single verbal change from "Gerizim" to"Ebal," as
we have seen. The Samaritans made no alterations at all. The
weight of past history and present circumstances was against
them, from the start, and their only hope of ultimate triumph
lay in refraining from all tampering with the sacred documents.
At the time, then, when the independent Samaritan church was
founded, the Pentateuch was regarded, both in Jerusalem and in
Shechem, as complete and unalterable. No other hypothesis is
tenable. This conclusion argues strongly for the later of the two
proposed dates of the schism. The ablest commentators on the
Pentateuch, at the present day, would probably all agree that the
final redaction of the Hebrew text could hardly have taken place
so long as two centuries before the date of the first Greek
translation.

As has already been remarked, the petition from the Jewish
church at Elephantine, so far as its mention of the household of
Sanaballat as possible helpers can be used as an argument, would
seem to show that the breach between Jews and Samaritans took

330 EZRA STUDIES

place later than 408 B.C. On the other hand, it has been univer
sally taken for granted that Samaria never had but one gov
ernor named Sanaballat; and since he is represented in the
papyrus letter as a man far advanced in years, the conclusion is
drawn that the hijra had taken place some time before this, and
that Neh. 13:28 f. is a description of the event. But on the con
trary, "Sanaballat" may well have been a common name, and
even a good Hebrew name, as I have already argued. The Ele
phantine letter may even be said to make it probable that another
Sanaballat held the post of governor in Samaria in the next
following generation. The duties of the office were already, in
408, exercised by the two sons of Sanaballat, named Delaiah and
Shelemiah, and upon his death one of them, presumably the older
of the two, was evidently expected to succeed him. According to
the well known law of Semitic nomenclature, the oldest grand
son of Sanaballat, if there should be one, was pretty certain to
bear the name of his grandfather. That is, if the Persians per
mitted the office to remain in this family — and judging from the
papyrus letter they did so permit — all probability pointed to a
Sanaballat II as the successor to it at the time when Delaiah and
Shelemiah should be old men; that is, at just about the time
when Darius III ascended the throne. It seems to me that the
evidence before us is sufficient to show that this probability was
actually realized. At the time when Alexander the Great arrived
in Syria, the governor of Samaria was, in fact, Sanaballat II.

As for Neh. 13:28f., the interpretation which I have already
given (pp. 235, 249) seems to me, for every reason, the only
possible one. The incident narrated by the Chronicler (for it is
certainly he, and not Nehemiah, who is the narrator) cannot be
the same as the one described by Josephus in the passage presently
to be discussed. If the great patriot Nehemiah had been con
nected in tradition — and written tradition! — with the Samaritan
secession; if Neh. 13:28 had been supposed to contain mention
of the renegade Manasseh; could these facts ever have been
forgotten in Jerusalem ? Most certainly not. Moreover, accord
ing to Josephus this renegade was the brother of the high priest
Jaddua; according to the Chronicler, the man whom Nehemiah
"chased" away was "one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib
the high priest." The name of the high priest in whose time this
momentous event occurred could never have been lost to sight.

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 331

The two stories are not the same; but on the other hand, they
are certainly not independent of each other; the Chronicler
obviously wished to show how Nehemiah had dealt with a case
precisely like that of Manasseh.

The story of the schism told by Josephus, finally, runs as
follows (Anti. xi, 7, 2; 8, 2): Sanaballat, the governor of
Samaria under Darius III, gave his daughter Nicaso (Nt/ca<ro>)
in marriage to Manasseh, the brother of the high priest Jaddua.
The elders of Jerusalem were greatly incensed, and insisted that
the obnoxious marriage should be annulled. Sanaballat therefore
promised the youth that if he would leave Jerusalem and take up
his abode in Shechem, he would build a fine temple at the shrine
on Mount Gerizim, and secure his formal appointment as high
priest there. Manasseh consented, and a great uproar was the
result. Moreover, in his flight to Shechem he was accompanied
by a large number of priests, Levites, and others. The story is
embellished in Josephus' usual manner, and contains some details
which are not to be taken seriously, such as the incidents in which
Alexander the Great figures, the statement that Sanaballat was
"a Cuthean" (the favorite gentilic to be applied to the Samaritans)
"sent into the land by Darius," and so on. But in its main state
ments regarding the schism it is self -consistent and plausible in
every way. No information which we possess contradicts it; on
the contrary, all that we know tends to support it.5u One important
argument in its favor can now be drawn from the story of Johanan,
Jeshua, and the Persian governor Bagoas, which just precedes
that of Manasseh. In both of these stories Josephus cuts quite
loose from the Chronicler, and uses a source, or sources, concern
ing which we have had no knowledge until very recently. Now,
however, as I have shown, the former of the narratives has been

55The authenticity of the tradition of the name " Mnnasseh " seems to be supported
indirectly in the following ways: (.1) by the suspended nun in the name mZJ-lQ in Judges
18:30, by means of which the priests of the idolatrous Danite sanctuary are made to be
descended not from " Moses," but from " Manasseh." This was the story of the origin of a
chief shrine of the Northern Kingdom, and the two-edged witticism which introduced the
name of this most notorious of all priests was a characteristic one. It has been customary
to refer the allusion to Kino Manasseh, but this is much less likely. Professor Moore, who
in his Judges^ pp. 401 tf., adopted the traditional explanation, tells me that he has since come
to believe that the Samaritan renegade is the one intended. (2) By the nameof the heroine's
husband in the book of Judith. The only imaginable reason for the choice of the hated
name "Manasseh" here is the wish of the irood-humored narrator to show his own appre
ciation of the fact that the scene of his stirring tale is laid, after all, in the city of thn Jews'
arch-enemies. For the demonstration of the identity of Shechem with " Bethulia," I may
refer to my article " The Site of Bethulia " in the Journal of the American Oriental Society,
Vol. XX (1899), pp. 160-72.

332 EZRA STUDIES

shown to be true history; and a strong presumption is thus
created in favor of the other, which was presumably derived from
the same source.

The secession of the Samaritans, then, occurred shortly before
the end of the Persian rule. For some time before the actual
breach, the relation between the two communities had been grow
ing more and more strained. It was either during this period,
just before the outbreak, or (more probably) on the occasion of
the secession, that the Shechemites took the Pentateuch into their
own hands once for all, and would hear no more of Judean
redactions and improvements. It had been, for generations past,
the book of the great sanctuary in Jerusalem, expanded and
revised there by the Jewish priests, and it had not occurred to the
Samaritans to interfere with this development. They had taken
what was set before them, no matter how unpalatable it often was.
But now that they saw themselves compelled to cut loose, the
book was henceforth their own property, to be preserved just as
it stood. The character of the worship on Mount Gerizim, we
may suppose, was not materially changed by the secession. It
had always followed the Mosaic law, with its own interpretations
and peculiarities of ritual usage, which were now also retained.50
Even more in the temple at Jerusalem, as a matter of course, the
effect of the schism was to stiffen every characteristic feature of
the praxis. There was a natural tendency in the ranks of the
clergy to put increasing emphasis on certain local forms of organi
zation, and to develop them further. The Chronicler's writings
furnish good illustration of this tendency. But both in Judea
and in Samaria the principal effect of the separation lay deeper
than the ritual. The whole Jewish people, from the beginning of
the Greek period onward, saw itself confronted, close at hand, with
a bitter enemy of its own flesh and blood, worshiping
the God of the Patriarchs and holding to the law of
Moses. Here was a breaking up of the family of Abraham much
more distressing in its character than the dispersion into foreign
lands. And this was at just the time when some of the best
Gentile faiths and philosophies were beginning to have a sympa
thetic hearing in Judea, and when the truth which the Second

56 Cowley, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, article " Samaritans," p. 671, expresses the usual
erroneous view when he says: " Manasseh's advent no doubt had the effect of fixing the
Israelitish character of the Sam;iritan religion." But the worship had been "Israelitish "
all the time ; it was just this which had led to all the bad feeling.

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 333

Isaiah, Malachi, and others had taught, that Yah we has his chil
dren in every race and nation, was becoming still better under
stood. The contrast was one which could not fail to have its
lasting effect on the thought and life of the people. In particular,
the growth of sharply defined and opposed sects, such as we see in
process of formation in the Maccabean period and later, was greatly
promoted. The Psalms can teach us, however, that a large body
of the Jews held steadily to the direct and well-considered middle
course, continuing in a wholly worthy manner the religious tradi
tion which they had received from the great teachers of the
Persian period. Such as these could think and speak of the
Samaritans without malice, even if not without dislike. The
good-humored raconteur who tells the tale of Judith not only
makes no hostile allusion to the Shechemites of his own day, but
even chooses for the pseudonym of their city a name of singularly
good omen — if the usually accepted !""fibl$ TTIL , "House of God,"
is the original of BeruXova (or whatever the Greek transcription
may at first have been). As has already been observed, the choice
of "Manasseh" for the name of Judith's husband is certainly
harmless enough, calculated to provoke a smile rather than any
thing else, under the circumstances. The more carefully the story
is read, the more the reader must marvel at the forbearance of its
author, in this regard. There was repeated opportunity to hint at
the ill omen of Shechem, or to point a moral at the expense of the
Samaritans; but nothing of the sort is done, not even in speaking
of the counsel taken by the citizens, or in the episode of Achior
the Ammonite. Both the city itself and all connected with it are
mentioned invariably with respect. And yet the disguise of the
pseudonym must have been transparent, and intended to be so.57

XI. THE DATE OF NEHEMIAH

Since the sources for the history of the Jewish Restoration,
from its beginning to its end, are so very meager, it is doubly
unfortunate that the date of so important a part of it as the work
of Nehemiah should remain uncertain. In my Composition of
Ezra-Nehemiah, I was obliged to give up the attempt to answer
the question whether the "Artaxerxes" of Nehemiah was Longi-
manus or Mnemon. The only evidence which we then possessed,
in favor of either one of these two monarchs, was the late Jewish

K On the identity of u Bethulia " with Shechem, see the reference given abovr, p. 331.

334 EZRA STUDIES

tradition (Aramaic story; the Chronicler) which made him out to
be Artaxerxes II. But (as I then remarked) this tradition
deserves to be given hardly any weight. It is quite possible, for
instance, that a true report may long have been current that the
Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was the one who immediately followed
the Darius of Haggai and Zechariah. In that case, the same
blunder (of about a century) would have been made in the date
of the building of the wall as in that of the building of the temple.
Such a "tradition" as this is of no practical value until it is con
firmed from some other source.58 Moreover, it is very likely that
the choice of Artaxerxes Mnemon as the benefactor of Nehemiah
was simply a necessary result of the current version of the pre
ceding history. With Darius I transposed to his place before
Cyrus, and the theory established that the Jews were hindered by
force from building the temple, until the time of Darius II, it
was quite impossible to date the story of Nehemiah in the time of
Artaxerxes I.

The Elephantine letter now gives information on one important
point touching the matter, but leaves us still unable to decide
finally between the two dates. We know from the letter that in
408 B.C. the governor of Samaria was named Sanaballat, and that
he was then an aged man. On the supposition that Nehemiah
flourished under Artaxerxes I, this Sanaballat would have been
in the prime of life at the date (444 B.C.) when the wall was built.
On the other hand, we know from the account in Josephus, already
discussed, that Sanaballat II was governor of Samaria at about

335 B.C., and that he was at that time at least in middle life, and
possibly far advanced in years. If Nehemiah is supposed to
have lived in the time of Artaxerxes II, this Sanaballat could
have been a man of perhaps twenty-five years of age at the date
(384 B.C.) when the wall, on that supposition, would have been
built. The book of Nehemiah does not, indeed, refer to its
Sanaballat as the governor of Samaria; but this fact is of little
importance, since "the Horonite" is doubtless employed as a mere

58 From the lamentation of Nehemiah and his friends (l:3f.) over the destruction of
the city wall, some have wished to derive an argument as to the date, assuming that a recent
destruction is referred to. But the argument is unwarranted. The expressions used in the
verse are stock phrases ; compare for example I Mace. 3 : 45, II Mace. 1 : 8. The destruction
referred to is that by Nebuchadrezzar. Nehemiah may really have heard of it then for the
first time, but whether he did or not makes no difference. It is possible to draw howls of
woe from a Shi'ite Muslim, at the present day, by recounting to him the death of Hasan and
Husain ; not, however, because he has not heard the story already, nor because their martyr
dom is a recent event.

THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION 335

term of contempt.59 We may regard it as fairly certain, in any
case, that Nehemiah's Sanaballat was in fact the governor of
Samaria.60 The date of the building of the city wall, however,
must still be considered an open question. It has seemed to me
much more likely that the earlier date is the correct one;
because the age which it gives to Sanaballat seems better suited
to the story, and because of the intrinsic probability that the
repairing of the wall would not have been neglected until so late
a date as the reign of Artaxerxes II. Hence I have once or twice
(pp. 140, 226) spoken of the "probability" that Nehemiah lived
in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus. It must be admitted,
however, that these reasons are not conclusive. It is still open to
anyone who prefers the later date to hold to it until we have
received further light.

59 It is quite fruitless to attempt to decide whether the term refers to Beth Horon or to
Horonaim ; the one is as likely as the other.

60 The allusion to "The army of Samaria" in Neh. 3: 34, however, I believe to be
a contribution by the Chronicler ; see above, pp. 225 f. The hostility of Sanaballat, like that
of his allies Tobiah and Gusmu, was political, and a matter of course under the circum
stances. Just such jealous protest is sure to be made even in modern times, wherever the
building of new fortifications disturbs the existing balance of power.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

(It must be borne in mind that many of the dates are only approximate.)
B. c.

722 End of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

701 Sennacherib crushes the revolt in Palestine, including Judah.
His successors hold the kings of Judah in vassalage, and make
expeditions through the land,
c. 650 Psametik I opens Egypt to foreigners.
624 Scythian invasion.
608 Death of Josiah at Megiddo.

Jehoahaz carried to Egypt.

605-602 Campaigns of Nebuchadrezzar extending into Palestine.
597 Siege of Jerusalem, plundering of the temple, and first deporta
tion to Babylonia,
c. 590 Jewish mercenaries in the army of Psametik II (? possibly the

army of Psametik I, fifty years earlier).
586 Partial destruction of Jerusalem, burning of the temple, and

second deportation.
Murder of Gedaliah at Mizpah.

Flight of many into the neighboring regions, and to Egypt.
Repeopling and rebuilding of Jerusalem, beginning soon after

the destruction. Erection of a temporary house of worship.
555 Nabunaid's accession.
539 Cyrus invades Babylonia.

Building of Jewish temple at Elephantine; certainly before the

time of Cambyses, and perhaps before the time of Cyrus.
525 Cambyses invades Egypt.
521 Darius I Hystaspis (" Darius the Mede").
520 Haggai and Zechariah.

Rebuilding of the temple, under the leadership of Zerubbabel.
Jeshua, son of Jehozadak, high priest.
485 Xerxes.

464 Artaxerxes I Longimanus.
444 Nehemiah rebuilds the wall of Jerusalem.
Chaps. 1, 2, 4-6 of the book of Nehemiah.
Sanaballat I ("the Horonite") governor of Samaria.
424 Darius II Nothus.
c. 415 Johanan high priest in Jerusalem.
Bagohi Persian governor of Judea.
Murder of Jeshua in the temple.
411 Destruction of the temple at Elephantine.
408 The Jews of Elephantine petition successfully for the rebuilding

of their temple.
Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanaballat I, in charge of

affairs at Samaria.

337

338 EZRA STUDIES

B. C.

407 Revolt of Egypt from Persia.
404 Artaxerxes II Mnemon.
359 Artaxerxes III Ochus.
336 Darius III Codomannus.

Jaddua high priest in Jerusalem.

Sanaballat II governor of Samaria.

Expulsion of Manasseh, and Samaritan secession; building of the

temple on Mount Gerizim. Pentateuch in its final form.
332 Palestine under Macedonian rule.
323 Ptolemy I Soter.
c. 320 Pseudo-Jeremiah.
312 Seleucus I Nicator.

301 Palestine securely under Egyptian rule.
c. 300 Story of the Three Youths, written in Aramaic.
285 Ptolemy II Philadelphus.
281-261 Antiochus I Soter.

Translation of the Pentateuch into Greek, at Alexandria,
c. 260 Aramaic Story of Samaritan intrigues (Ezr. 4:8—6:14).
c. 250 The Chronicler.

248 Antiochus II Theos marries Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Phila
delphus (Dan: 2:43, 11:6).
246-221 Ptolemy III Euergetes.

Seleucid kingdom (the "clay," Dan. 2:41-43) broken up, and

nearly annihilated by the Egyptian power (the "iron"),
c. 235 Dan. 1-6, written in Aramaic.
223-187 Antiochus III the Great.
c. 220 The book of Ezekiel.

c. 200 Story of the Three Youths interpolated in the Chronicler's his-
198 Palestine securely under Seleucid rule. [tory of Israel,

c. 180 Wisdom of Bar Sira,

175-164 Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

168 Desecration of the temple and cessation of the worship.
165 Restoration of the worship, iby Judas Maccabaeus and his fol
lowers.

Old Greek translation of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh.

164 Dan. 7-12 (the author wrote chap. 7 in Aramaic and chaps. 8-12
in Hebrew, and translated chap. 1 into Hebrew, in order to
unite the two parts inseparably).

161 Building of Jewish temple at Leontopolis in Egypt,
c. 150 Old Greek translation of Daniel.

143 Letter from the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea to their brethren

in Egypt (II Mace. 1:1-9).
132 Antiochus VII Sidetes besieges Jerusalem and breaks down the

wall of the city.

128 Death of Antiochus VII in Parthia (II Mace. 1:12-16).
124 Second letter from the Jews of Judea to those in Egypt (II Mace
1:10—2:18).

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA

P. 30. — Through an almost unaccountable slip, made in preparing
the article on First Esdras for the AJSL., the date of the transposition
of Neh. 7:73- 10:40 and that of the old Greek translation of the
Chronicler's work were put in the last century instead of the second
century B.C., both in the account of the origin of the two recensions and
in the table at the end of the article (p. 35 in this book). In the latter
place, the correction was made when the sheets for the "Studies" were
printed off; but in the other passages the blunder was overlooked, and
still stands. Accordingly, on p. 30, line 9 from the bottom, instead of
"af some time in the last century" read "early in the second century."
The same correction must be made on p. 34, line 5 from the bottom.

P. 54. — The original reading of the Greek text of I Esdr. 4:29 was
certainly this: cOtvpow avrbs 'ATra/xr/v, K. T. e. "I myself saw Apama,"
etc. By an easy mistake in copying, the second word became avrov,
whereupon /cat had to be inserted (see the present text of the verse
on p. 43).

P. 55. — It is possible that the only change required in I Esdr. 4:36
at the point where I have conjectured a lacuna (see note d) is a change
in the punctuation . If we put a period after the word "tremble," and
suppose the next clause, "And with her is no error at all," to introduce a
new phase of the subject, the result is fairly satisfactory. It seems to
me more probable, however, that something has been accidentally
omitted.

P. 80, bottom. — It is very much to be desired that some one who has
the time and equipment for the task should undertake to identify the
portions of Theodotion's translation which can still be recognized in the
remaining historical books of the Old Testament. In some books two
distinct Greek versions have been preserved, one of which can probably
be shown to be Theodotion's. In other cases it is certainly true either
that the sole extant version is his, or else that his work has been used to
supplement and correct the older translation. Transliterations which
from their number and character can only be his are very noticeable in
the books of Kings, for instance. One reason why Theodotionic readings
have been adopted in certain passages, here and there throughout the
Old Testament, supplanting the readings of an older text, is this, that
the abbreviations for "Septuagint" (O) and " Theodotion " (®) used in
the critical apparatus of the early Jewish and Christian scholars and
editors were constantly confused.

P. 99, middle. — The tradition which attests that this tfB Syr. Eth.
text in the Chronicles-Ezra books is that of Origen's Hexapla is in fact
about as strong ns any such tradition could possibly be. The comparison
(which I have not made) of the quotations from these books in Origen's
writings could not add anything essential to the evidence. If the text

339

340 EZRA STUDIES

should be found to agree, the corroboration would be interesting; but if
on the contrary another type of text should be found to have been
employed, the fact could have no weight whatever against the tradition.
Hundreds of learned writers on Biblical subjects in the United States
and England, for instance, habitually quote the King James version of
the Bible — that being the version with which they and their readers
have long been familiar; while if they had to select a standard English
text for a polyglot edition of the Bible, they would one and all employ
the Revised Version. The parallel is a good one.

P. 107, line 12 from the bottom. — It should be added, that the
Hebrew reading which lay before Aquila was of course *"!t2"J& not tOl/JIS •

P. 131, note v. — It is a somewhat similar use of the "3 of accompani
ment" wiien in the old Aramaic inscriptions found at Zenjirli the vassal
king tells how he has been wont to run "beside the chariot-wheel"
(bjbjH) of his lord and master. Perhaps the Chronicler's favorite and
peculiar QVH D"P > etc., may also be included here.

P. 191, middle. — Another example of the survival of this Aramaic
ending in a modern Syrian place-name is afforded by the name of the
village 'Areya in the Lebanon, originally fc^*"0?, "laurel trees."

P. 191, note t. — I now see that this very same idiom is found in the
Aramaic papyri edited by Sayce and Cowley; thus, "one named
Petosiris," H'-TS "'"TClttS, K 4, 8f.; "Teba by name," JT21E tfnn, K 12 f.

P. 195, bottom. — Compare especially Ezr. 7:8 and 10:9, where the
idiom is also used.

INDICES

I. MATTERS AND NAMES

ABBREVIATIONS in Greek MSS., 138, 279,

339
"Accents" of the massoretic Hebrew

misused as punctuation marks, 1 1 8 f .
Alexander the Great, 40 f., 45, 320, 330 f.
Andreas, C. F., 175, 177
Apama, daughter of Artabazos III, 40 ft*.,

339

Apama, daughter of Spitamenes, 40 ff.
Aquila, 66 f., 72, 107, 274, 340
Arabic version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., 64
Aramaic Story in Ezra, period to which

it belongs, 152, 161 ff.

— its tendency, 154 ff., 287, 306, 326
Aramaic passages joined to Hebrew, 29 f.,

58, 157 ff., 178 ff., 225
Aristeas, letter of, 151, 153 f., 295
Artaxerxes I, 38 f., 48, 59, 140, 149, 170 f.,

307, 334 f.
Artaxerxes II, 38, 140, 170, 205, 239, 249,

260, 263, 318, 320 f., 334 f.
Artaxerxes III, 38, 318
Assuan, Aramaic papyri from, 161 ff.,

170 ff., 181, 198 f., 340
Astyages, 38, 287

BABYLONIA, Jews in, 286 ff., 290 ff., 295 f.,

310, 317
Bagohi (Bagoi, Bagoas, Bagoses), 175,

318ff., 331

— as a Jewish name, 167
Ball, C. J., 21, 43, 192
Batten, L. W., 62, 123
Belshazzar, 38, 302

Benzinger, J., 62, 73 f., 109, 111, 215, 218,

220, 238, 242
Berliner, A., 292
Bernheim, E., 264
Bertholdt, L., 14
Bertholet, A., 15, 21, 38, 62, 111 f., 123 f.,

135, 142, 144, 184, 191, 193, 246, 250,

253, 262, 277 f.
"Bethulia" a pseudonym of Shechem, 331,

333

Bod-Ashtart inscription, 176
Budde, K., 144

CANON of sacred scripture, among the Jews,
33 ff.

— in the Syriac church, 2, 33

Catena, Syriac, containing extracts from

I Esdras and Nehemiah, 4 ff.
Cheyne, T. K., 311
Chronicler, the, his literary habits, 20, 27

ff., 115, 120 ff., 133, 135, 157 ff., 213 ff.,

230 ff., 270, 282

Chronicler, the, his characteristics as editor,
213 ff.

— apologetic aim, 135, 155 ff., 168 f., 173,
178, 184, 208 ff., 227, 230 f., 238, 262 f.,
287, 297 f., 326, 332

— didactic purpose, 237, 251

— interest in the Levitical institutions,
210f., 234ff., 280

— lists of names, 211 f., 214, 222, 239,
249 f., 265

— imaginary sources, 141, 223, 227 ff.,
242 ff.

— fondness for the number twelve, 222,
246 f., 250, 260, 266 ff., 274, 276, 280,
284

Chronicles, Books of, manner of separation

from Ezr.-Neh., 116 f.
Cobb, W. H., 288
Codex A Alexandrinus, 79, 91 ff., 105, 169.

172, 279

Codex ^ Sinaiticus, 91 ff.
Codex B Vaticanus, 54, 62, 65, 75, 80, 90,

92 ff., 136, 169, 178 f., 279
Codex N Basiliano- Vaticanus, 91 ff., 136,

169

Coele-Syria, 83
Cornill, C. H., 14, 16, 21, 47, 97, 142, 144,

292

Cowley, A. E., 163 ff.,167, 172, 327, 332
Cyaxares, 38, 287
Cyprian, 111
Cyrus, 38, 48, 57, 59 f., 117, 135 f., 140 ff.,

155, 288, 301 ff.

— edict in favor of the Jews, 144, 239

DALMAN, G., 51

Daniel, Book of, dependent on I Esdras, 48

— chaps. 1-6 older than chaps. 7-12, 48 f.,
162

— "official documents" in the book, 146

— character of its Aramaic, 161 ff.

— old Greek version, made by translator
of I Esdras, 84 f.; its date, 85

— Theodotion's translation, 68, 78, 85
Darius I Hystaspis ("the Mede"), 38, 48,

59, 135 f., 140 f., 200, 287, 302 f., 334
Darius II, 38 f., 59 f., 140, 171, 239, 303,

320 f., 334

Darius III, 40 f., 45, 249, 320 f., 330 f.
"Darius" substituted for "Cyrus," 57 ff.,

125, 130

Delaiah, son of Sanaballat I, 250, 330
Deportation of Israelites by Sargon, 326 f.
Dillmann, A., 100
Dispersion, the Jewish, 153, 167, 286,

289, 293 ff.

341

342

EZRA STUDIES

Documents, official, in Ezra, 140ff.

— use of such for literary embellishment,
145 ff., 206, 231 f., 245

Driver, S. R., vii, 14, 112, 126, 142, 197,

230, 241, 322
Duhm, B., 286, 311

"EBAL" substituted by the Jews for the

original reading "Gerizim," 322 f, 329
Edomites, 27, 57, 309, 328
Egypt, Jews in, 294 f., 298, 301, 310
Egyptian recension of Greek text of Chron.-

Ezr.-Neh., 43, 75 f., 80, 86 f., 101 ft., 127,

136ff., 179
Elephantine, Jewish Aramaic letters from,

140, 163 f., 167, 175 f., 190, 250, 316 ff.,

324, 328 ff.

— the Jewish temple there, 176, 301, 315 ff.
Eliashib the high priest, 264, 318 f., 321,

330

Encyclopaedia. Biblica, 95, 203
Esarhaddon, 169
Esdras I, in the Hexapla, 2 ff. '

— theories of the book held by scholars,
12 ff.

— supposed not to be extant in Greek, 13

— general neglect of it, 14 f., 20, 65

— its true nature, 18 ff., 82 ff.

— contains a portion of the Chronicler's
narrative -lost from canonical OT, 25 ff.,
115ff.

— origin as a separate "book," 30 ff., 81,
269

"Esdras II," in the Hexapla, 3

Eshmunazar inscription, 185

Esther, Book of, dependent on I Esdras,

47 f.

- "official documents" incorporated, 146
Ethiopic version of I Esdras, 100 f., 137,

169, 178 f.

Eupolemus, 49, 82 f.
Ewald, H., 14, 16
Excision, by editors, of a troublesome

passage, 33 f., 88, 115, 184
"Exile," the term ordinarily applied in the

OT to the Jewish Dispersion, 286, 289,

296 f., 302, 305, 308 ff., 314

— exiles in Babylonia, 285 ff., 290 ff.,
301 ff.

Ezekiel, Book of, a pseudepigraphon, 288
Ezra the scribe-potentate, 49, 140, 199,
205, 237, 243, 247, 259 f., 263, 284

— "Memoirs" of, 156, 175, 238 ff.

— story without historical value, 242 ff.,
262 ff.

Ezra-Nehemiah, Book of, manner of its
separation from Chronicles, 116 f.

— misplacement of certain chapters of
the Ezra narrative, 253 ff.

— date of this transposition, 258

— chronology of the Ezra story, 260

FIELD, F., 66 ff., 80 f.

First person, used in imitating personal

narratives and documents, 146, 244 ff.,

272

TYaenkel, S., 176

Fritzsche, O. F., 15, 20 f., 25, 43, 52, 54,

57, 86

GEISSLER, J., 241 f., 245 f.

Gerizim, Mount, the seat of the blessing

in Deut., 322 f.
"Gerizim" altered by the Jews to "Ebal,"

322 f., 329

Gloss added by original narrator, 185
Governors of Judea in Persian period, 141,

263, 267, 283, 306, 318 f.
Graetz, H., 142
Greek MSS., variations in orthography,

70, 95, 179

— extent of accidental corruption, 74f.,
77, 78 f., 93 ff., 169 f.

Greek version, old, of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh.,
82 ff.

— its date, 35, 49, 82 f.

— loss of greater part, 35 f.,81, 269

— unknown to Theodotion, 81 f.

— made in Egypt, 83

— its character, 83 f., 179 f., 182

— quality of its Semitic text, 84
Greek version, old, of Daniel, 84 f.

— its date, 85

Greek versions, misuse of, 65, 112

Grotius, 16, 66 ff.

Guthe, H., 14, 16, 21 f., 52, 54, 62, 112,

120 ff., 144, 191, 193, 279
Gwynn, J., 4

HAD AD inscription, 189

Haggai, Book of, historical data from, 285,

303 ff.
Hanani(ah), favorite name with Chron.,

226, 233
Haupt, P., 122
Hebrew text, recension of second century

A. D., 87 ff.
"Hellas," designation of Seleucid Empire,

Hexapla of Origen, Iff., 65 ff., 96ff., 339
Hexaplar "LXX" text, its character, 99,

105, 169, 178, 279
Hexaplar Syriac version, Iff., 67, 96 f.,

99 f.

— in I Esdras, 6 f .

— in Nehemiah, 100

High priests, Jewish, in the Persian period,
319 ff.

Hiram, King of Tyre, 82, 146, 210, 221 f.

Hiram (Huram), the Phoenician crafts
man, 222

Historians, Jewish, their literary habits,
145 ff.

Holscher, G., 83, 147, 150, 154

Hoonacker, A. van, vii, 142 f.

Howorth, H., vii, 3, 4, 16 ff., 21, 59, 67

ISAIAH, the Second, 153, 288, 309, 311 f.,
314, 328

JADDUA the high priest, 249, 319 ff., 330
Jeremiah, Book of, late origin of a large
part, 285 ff., 297, 299 f., 302

INDICES

343

Jerome, 13, 87

Jerusalem and Judea, exaggerated account

of depopulation of, 209, 238, 285 fl.,

297 fl., 328

Jeshua, son of Jehozadak, 131, 306, 319
"Joachim" in I Esdr. 5: 6, result of scribal

error, 28, 131

Johanan the high priest, 264, 318 ff., 331
Josephus, 32 f., 43, 55, 81, 102, 106, 114,

137, 147, 150, 154, 170, 179, 255, 317 ff.,

328 ff.
Joshua the Stylite, Chronicle of, 7, 185, 290

KAUTZSCH, E., 116

"King of Heaven," 27, 57, 59

Kittel, R.f 62, 73 f., 92, 110 ff., 117, 218,

220, 238

Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, 110 ff., 119, 221
Klostermann, A., viii, 65, 76, 107 ff., 122
Konig, Ed., viii, 21

Kosters, W. H., vii, 14, 143, 254, 298, 300
Kraetzschmar, R., 242
Kuenen, A., 142

LAGARDE, P. A. de, 16, 48, 54, 80, 109
Latin version, old, of I Esdras, 105, 111,

127, 137

Law of Moses, represented by Chron. as
"restored" from time to time, after
periods of neglect, 237, 247, 261 f.

— its restoration by "Ezra," 259 ff.
Leontopolis, Jewish temple at, 317 f.
Levites, singers, and porters, their status

the same in Ezr.-Neh. as in Chron., 236,

278

Lohr, M., 240

Lucca codex of Latin version, 49, 54, 137
Lucian's recension, 16, 65, 70 ff., 90, 105

ff., 136f., 169, 173, 179, 198, 274, 279
Lupton, 13, 15, 21

MACCABEES I, character and purpose of
its author, 147 ff.

— the incorporated documents, 143, 147 ff.
206

— genuineness of last chapters, 148 f.

— trustworthiness of chaps. 8 and 15, 149
Maccabees II, the two prefixed official

letters, 317

Maccabees III, documents in, 147
Maes, A., his Syr.-Hex. codex, 1 ff., 99

— his peculium syrorum, 3
Malachi, prophecy of, 312 ff.
Manasseh the renegade, 320, 324 ff., 331
Marquart, J., 41, 43 f., 48, 59

Marti, K., 62, 187f., 191 ff., 195, 286, 292
Massoretic recension, 87 ff.

— excellence of its text in Aramaic of
Ezra, 183; in the Ezra story, 264

Median kingdom supposed to precede

Persian, 38, 135 f., 287, 302
Metrical form in Arimaic compositions, 47
Meyer, Ed., vii f., 38, 144 ff., 175, 195 ff.,

206, 270, 323
Mez, A., 102

Milan codex of Syr.-Hex. version, 1 f.
Mitchell, H. G., 259
Moore, G. F., 331
Moulton, J. H., 51

NABATEAN immigrants, 309, 328
Nabatean inscriptions, 162, 165
Names of persons, their significance among

the Jews, 166 ff.
Neapolitan Synopsis, 49, 254
Nebuchadnezzar, 156, 171, 191
Nehemiah, character of, 226 f., 248

— as sketched by the Chronicler, 248 ff.,
259, 263, 298, 330

— story of, 141, 227, 307

— Chron. 's additions to it in chaps. 1-6,
225 ff., 307

— interpolation of his name in the story
of Ezra, 258, 267, 269, 282 f.

Nerab, old Aramaic inscriptions from, 164,

185

Nestle, E., 16, 96
Niese, B., 149 f.
Noldeke, Th., 41, 142, 149, 166, 168, 173,

176, 200
Numerals represented by Greek letters, 138

ONIAS the high priest, 83
Orelli, C. von, 241, 244
Origen's text of the "LXX," 4, 64 f., 91 ff.,
136 f., 339

PALESTINIAN Syr. Lectionary, accidental

transposition of certain passages, 257
Palmyrene Tariff inscription, 165
Papyri, Aramaic, from Egypt, 140, 161 ff.,

170 ff., 173 ff., 186, 191 f.
Paul of Telia, 1 ff., 96, 99 ff.
Persian kings, order of, according to Jews

of Greek period, 38 f., 135 f., 140 f., 160,

184, 287

Persian words in Aramaic of Ezra, 173 ff.
Pohlmann, 16, 66
Priest-Code, the, an imaginary document,

196 f., 262, 288, 292
Psalms, importance of, for the religious

history of Israel, 313, 333
Psametik I opens Egypt to foreigners, 294
Ptolemy I, 40 ff.
Ptolemy VII, 83
Punctuation of Hebrew OT, 118 f.

RELIGION of Israel in the Persian period,

289, 291, 307 ff.

"Remnant" of Israel, 133, 308
Renan, E., 21
Reuss, Ed., 21
Ryssel, V., 142

SACHAU, Ed., 163, 167 f., 176
Samaritans, 142, 147, 151, 153 ff., 160 f.,

168 f., 171 ff., 178, 182 ff., 186, 209,

212, 226, 235 f., 247, 249, 287, 298, 317,

321 ff.
Samaritan Pentateuch, 323 f., 326, 328 f.,

332
Sanaballat I, 168, 212, 226, 250, 330, 334 f.

344

EZRA STUDIES

Sanaballat II, 320, 330 f., 334
"Sanabassar," 123, 136 ff.
Sayce, A. H., 163
Schrader, E., vii, 14
Schiirer, E., 14, 21, 82, 153 f.
Scythians, invasion of, 295
Seleucus I, 4 Off.

"Septuagint," objection to use of the
term, 17

— meaning in Syriac MSS., 2
"Servant of Yahwfc," 314

" Seventy years " of exile, 120, 135 f., 141,

285 f.

Shalmanassar, 169 ff., 182
Shechem, 212, 236, 316, 322 ff.
Sheshbazzar, 57 f., 60, 123, 136 ff., 158,

168, 171, 175, 263, 306

— identification with Zerubbabel, 306
Sidon, destruction of, 297
Siegfried, C., vii, 62, ill, 144, 226
Smith, H. P., vii, 143, 259, 288, 327
Stade, B., 142

Strack, H. L., 14, 187, 198
Susa, 39 f., 45, 57, 59
Swete, H. B., 37, 68 f., 84 f., 96 f., 106
Symmachus, 66 f., 104, 107 f., 129, 274
Syro-Palestinian recension, 43, 86 f.,
101 ff., 127, 136 ff., 170, 179

TABNIT inscription, 85, 185

Tendency of early Jewish narrators, 147,
150ff.

Tetrapolis, 171, 183

Thamasios, 44

Theodoret, 67, 105

Theodotion, author of canonical Greek ver
sion of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., 3 f., 11, 17,
66 ff., 87 ff., 91 ff., 169, 183, 264, 280

— his habit of transliteration, 69 ff.,
78 ff., 339

— gradual removal of his transliterations
from Greek texts, 78 ff., 93, 98, 339

— occasional superiority of his Hebrew
text, 72 ff., 87 f.

— his version of Daniel, 68, 78

— traces of his work in other OT books'
80 f., 339

Three Youths, Story of the, 37 ff.

— effect of its presence in I Esdras, 12, 19,
33 f.

— evidence of its interpolation, 18 ff.

— character of its Greek, 21 ff.

— interpolated in original Semitic text,
20 ff., 161

— written in Aramaic, 23 ff.

— how attached to the Chronicler's nar
rative, 25 ff., 56 ff.

— little altered by interpolator, 25ff.,
37, 45, 56 ff.

— its date, 42, 44, 162

— date of interpolation, 37, 44, 49

— not a Jewish composition, 45 f .

— belongs to "wisdom literature," 46 f.
Thucydides, 148 f.

"Tirshatha," non-committal title used

only by the Chronicler, 257, 263, 267,

282 f., 306
Traditions of Persian period, lacking in

Jerusalem, 141, 156, 228, 319
Transposition, accidental, of passages in

copying MSS., 257
Transposition, indicated in old Syriac MSS.

by diacritical-marks, 7
Twelve, the Chronicler's favorite number,

222, 246 f., 250, 260, 266 ff., 274, 276,

280, 284

VESSELS of the temple, their number, 138

WELLHAUSEN, J., 38, 142 f., 149, 156, 254,

298

Whiston, 16, 66
Wilcken, 41

XERXES, 38 f., 48, 59, 141, 200

YAWAN (Javan), as a designation of the
Seleucid Empire, 45

ZECHARIAH, Book of, historical data from,

285 f., 303 ff.
Zenjlrli, old Aramaic inscriptions from,

164, 340
Zerubbabel, 38 f., 46, 48 f., 58 ff., 131, 168,

175, 283, 285, 300, 306
Zockler, 15, 21

II. LEXICAL AND GKAMMATICAL

apxo/uat. (as an Aramaism) 51, 57

jSi'a 76 f.
6ia</>opov 56
e-yKcuVia 78
e/ota6apu)cra 107, 340
evaXet/u. 79

107

125, 174 f.
evcoStcu 78
KoiArj Supt'a 83
Aiv// 78
<rvv (rendering

avve-rL^eiv 78

Tore (rendering
<£a<rex 67, 76

with accusative 107
23 f., 50

interchanged with
186

supplanting preformative
"counselor" 222

P<«-rjp 123

Sapeucos 77, 266

apxoi 174f., 190

rifleeris 175, 187

(glOSS) 185, 200

fire off erings " 192
governing direct object 274
omitted by Chron. 122

as preformative
162, 165

INDICES

34:5

colonnade" 81, 175 f., 189
of accompaniment 131, 340

23 f., 50
Babylonia 120, 151, 191, 265

yi "reporter" 171, 181, 190, 200
"Dispersion" 297
"judges" 180ff.
r, 77, 266
H— as ending of infln. (Heb. qal, Aram.

peal stem) 190
OH- 162

1 explicative 50, 194, 265
1 and 1 confused by scribes 69
^— as ending of imperf . 3d plur. in Aram.
186f., 188

146, 186, 188

"lay" 187
"official report" (also Dan. 6:3)

200

Terpao-oAZrai 171, 183

Aram. plur. ending, surviving in
names of Syrian towns 191, 340
•pi Seleucid Empire 45

EJlT1 (hithp.) 131

b3^ jussive (Tabnit) 85

bnp bo is?
nb- 162

&023D 185

b "namely" 121, 124, 273
b used to continue constructions intro
duced in another way 125, 193, 197, 199

189

228 f.
123

raid" 74
CHB *fl2 160

distinctly" 268
(Phoen. and Aram.) 85
: 84 f.

(saphel} 192
"Q? 83, 174 f., 206
b "27 usedbyChron. 126, 130

Samaritans 184, 236

a 177
, 88

1p (Phoen.) eixuv 185
Di:p (Syr.)=fc02-fpp 185
H^^lp (plural) "cities" 186
UFO"! "goods" 121

Dispersion" 297

(intrans.) "be finished" 195
130

for TJJ-QTJJ 138
(stative peaZ) 192

province Samaria 186, 188, 220
following a dual 139
substituted by massoretes 88
(Aram.) used redundantly 51, 189
"j*!HEJ (Phoen.) "colonnade" 176
banishment" 199
138

Accusative, adverbial 188, 197, 268 (noted)
Article omitted after bD 124, 272, 274
Construct state, noun governing two or

more co-ordinate genitives 276, 278
Ellipsis 195, 197, 270 f., 273 ff., 340
Epistolary perfect tense 188
Haphel signifying entrance into a con

dition 187, 195
Hebraisms in Aramaic of Ezra and Daniel

189
Infln. construct ending in ath, in Aramaic

165 f.
Passive voice replaced by indef. third

plur. active 50, 280
Plural of compounds 188
Sibilants replaced by dentals in Aramaic

163 ff.
Subject, indef., expressed by third sing.

of verb 269

Suffix, proleptic, in late Hebrew 222
Third person instead of second, in direct

address 193
Verbs signifying precaution, etc., con

strued without a negative particle 188
Vocalization, massoretic, distinguishing

divine from human 1 95
Vowel ft occasionally becoming a in later

pronunciation of Jewish Aramaic 194

346

EZEA STUDIES

III. PASSAGES INCIDENTALLY DISCUSSED

(Passages marked with an asterisk * are those in which some emendation of the
Hebrew text is suggested.)

Leviticus

Micah

Nehemiah

PAGE

26:34 f.

286

1:2

193

7:43* 279

26:43 286

Deuteronomy

10:17 46, 55

1:1*
1:14*

Haggai

• 306
306

7:48* 89
11:8* 110
11:17* 110

11:30* 322 f.,

326

2:2*

306

12:11* 319ff.

27:4* 322f.,

326

2:3

285, 303

12:23 141

32:21

326

2:16*

304

12:36 249, 260, 280

Joshua

2:21*

306

13: 28 f. 142, 249, 321, 328 fl.

8:30* 322 f.,

326

Zechariah

I Chronicles

Judges

1:12

285 f., 303

2:52 f. 71, 73, 76

18:30

331

6:10

292

9:1* 229

I Samuel

10:27*

119

7:5

7:7

285 f.
286

21:20 75, 112
28:19 276, 282

30:8
II Samu 1

1:11

Malachi

313 f.

28: 20* 73, 87
29:6fl. 255, 262, 266 f., 268

3:22

Psalms

II Chronicles

I Kings

29:2

2:12ff. 82, 146, 222

10:24*

216

Esther

4:16 222

15:10*

217

1 : 1-3

48, 50

13:2* 217

II Kings

Daniel

13:9ff.* 235 f.
14:13f. 74

5: 6

146

2:4

185

19 • 7 56

10: 2 f. 146
17:24ff. 327f.

2:5
3:29

84
84 f.

19:8* 238
22:1 74

21:18, 26
23:24 fl.

3:96(LXX) 85
4:16, 25 fl. 146

24:26 212
26: 6 fl. 216

24:13f.

299

4:34

32:32* 220

24:14ff.
25:8ff.

209
209

5:30
6:1

38
38, 48, 135 f., 141

33:19* 229
35:19* 74, 87 fl.

25:9*

300

6:2

48, 141

35:21fl. 221

Isaiah

6:29

38, 48

36:8* 72, 89, 217

25:8

314

9:1

38, 287

36:21 " 286

42:6f.

314

9:25

136

36:22f. 116f.

42:22ff.*

309

10:1

43:14*

288

11: 1

Tohit

44:28

288

11:2*

3:llf. 59

45:1*
46:11*

288
314

2:40

Ezra
279

7:11 2, 36
14:5 161

48:9fl.*

309

2:46*

I Maccabees

48:14*

288

7:9

190

1:54 85

48:20*

288

10:6

264, 321

5:49 74

49:8fl.

314

14: 9* 24, 53

61:1 fl.

314

Nehemiah

16:23f. 231

1:2 f.

301

Jeremiah

1 : 3 f .

334

II Maccabees

25:11 f. 209, 286,

302

2:7-9a

225

2:13 249

29:10 209, 286,
29:14
52:28 290.

302
286
299

3:15
3:33-38
4:17*

108
225 f., 335
112

Ecclesiasticus

50:26 326

Amos

5:13

224

Enoch

6: If.*

294

6:16ff.

226 f., 248

89:72 258

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

Torrey, Charles C,
Ezra Studies

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Ezra studies"

See other formats